Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 07:30:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v39o04$2h667$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me>
 <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me>
 <v38kh7$2foi0$15@i2pn2.org> <v38lsl$1ggjs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38o71$2foi0$17@i2pn2.org> <v38ogh$1grj4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38pr0$2fohv$6@i2pn2.org> <v38thu$1hf5c$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 11:30:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2660551"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v38thu$1hf5c$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10773
Lines: 208

On 5/29/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/29/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/29/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/29/24 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 1:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you not to cite his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He does it to try to rope more people in.  It's the same 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ploy as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulting people by name.  It's hard to ignore being 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maligned in public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Thanks for validating my simplified encoding of the Linz*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really did believe that Ben Bacarisse was lying when I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the time I was talking about the easily verified fact 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of fully operational code and everyone 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was denying the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verified facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01       int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02       {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07       }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09       int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10       {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11         H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12         return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13       }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that two dozen people are easily proven 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they claimed that the correct simulation of the input to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the behavior of int main() { D(D); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When D is correctly simulated by H using an x86 emulator 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way that the emulated D can reach its own emulated final 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at line 06 and halt is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) The x86 machine code of D is emulated incorrectly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) The x86 machine code of D is emulated in the wrong order
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't a "Correct Simulation" by the definition that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow the relating of a "Simulation" to the behavior of an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right the execution trace of D simulated by pure function H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an x86 emulator must show that D cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final state and halt or the simulation of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of D is incorrect or in the wrong order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you aren't going to resolve the question but just keep 
>>>>>>>>>>>> up with your contradiction that H is simulating a template 
>>>>>>>>>>>> (that doesn't HAVE any instrucitons of H in it) but also 
>>>>>>>>>>>> DOES simulate those non-existance instructions by LYING 
>>>>>>>>>>>> about what it does and simulating a SPECIFIC instance that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it LIES behaves just like DIFFERENT specific instatces.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will give you the benefit of the doubt and call that an honest
>>>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding. I have much more empathy for you now that I 
>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>> that Linz really did say words that you could construe as you 
>>>>>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The infinite set of every H/D pair specified by the template
>>>>>>>>>>> where D is correctly simulated by pure simulator H or pure 
>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>> H never has any D reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the question ISN'T about the SIMULATED D, but about the 
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual PROGRAM/MACHINE D
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be your blind spot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>>>> ∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>>>>>> ∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really the above formalization does not can cannot
>>>>>>>>> specify Turing Machines as the input to any decider H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then what is x representing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x <is> a finite string Turing machine description that SPECIFIES 
>>>>>>> behavior. The term: "representing" is inaccurate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it specifies the machine, and thus, though that, the behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we assume that a decider takes an actual Turing machine as its
>>>>> input that is correct otherwise that is one level of indirection
>>>>> away from what we are really looking at.
>>>>>
>>>>> The people have perpetuated this mistake for many decades never
>>>>> actually made it not a mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to define what you mean by "Indirection", because you 
>>>> aren't using it in the normal manner.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have conclusively proven that the behavior of the correct
>>> simulation of the x86 code of D by pure function H has
>>> different behavior than the direct execution of D(D).
>>
>> But the question isn't about the "Correcgt Simulation" and especially 
>> based on YOUR definition. So you haven't proven ANYTHING about the 
>> question except that you don't understand it and are just an ignorant 
>> pathological liar with a reckless disregard for the trutn.
>>
>> You are just showing that you have successfully brainwashed yourself 
>> into beleiving your own lies.
>>
> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01       int D(ptr p)
> 02       {
> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04         if (Halt_Status)
> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
> 06         return Halt_Status;
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========