Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v3d44q$2b9oj$2@dont-email.me>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v3d44q$2b9oj$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06
 and halt
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:15:55 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <v3d44q$2b9oj$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3a40t$1o2ef$1@dont-email.me> <v3asj2$2ihjj$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3asv1$1s60g$1@dont-email.me> <v3bvg7$24rgd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cml5$28tmt$1@dont-email.me> <v3cqs8$29k17$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3crrg$29gdk$4@dont-email.me> <v3ct95$2a0fg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cvop$2agep$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 20:15:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cf53965cd5e18e109738f16cf9deb9c3";
	logging-data="2467603"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hEiXvL0SYAIluGULAWLw7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i4jWDbfEvl0bpzbzohUncXPTPj4=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v3cvop$2agep$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5126

Op 31.mei.2024 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
> On 5/31/2024 11:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.mei.2024 om 17:54 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/31/2024 10:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 31.mei.2024 om 16:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/31/2024 2:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 31.mei.2024 om 00:01 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 5/30/2024 4:54 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 30 May 2024 09:55:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The left hand-side are line numbers of correct C code.
>>>>>>>>> This code does compile and does conform to c17.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone with sufficient knowledge of C can easily determine 
>>>>>>>>> that D
>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by any *pure function* H (using an x86 
>>>>>>>>> emulator)
>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state at line 06 
>>>>>>>>> and halt.
>>>>>>>> Yeah, of course not, if H doesn’t halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To actually understand my words (as in an actual honest dialogue)
>>>>>>> you must pay careful attention to every single word. Maybe you
>>>>>>> had no idea that *pure functions* must always halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe you did not know that every computation that never reaches
>>>>>>> its own final state *DOES NOT HALT* even if it stops running because
>>>>>>> it is no longer simulated. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since the claim is that H is also a computation, it holds for H, 
>>>>>> as well. That means that H *DOES NOT HALT* even if it stops 
>>>>>> running because it is no longer simulated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *pure function H definitely halts you are confused*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can assume a unicorn, but that does not make it existent. You 
>>>> can assume a simulating H that is a pure function and halts, but 
>>>> that does not make them existent. The set of such H is empty.
>>>
>>> You simply ignored my proof that you are wrong.
>>>
>>> D correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach
>>> its own final state at line 06 in any finite number of steps of
>>> correct simulation.
>>
>> I do not ignore your claim. It is in fact exactly your claim that D 
>> does not reach line 04 that proves that the simulation of HH does not 
>> reach its own final state.
>>
>> HH correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own final state 
>> and return to D in any finite number of steps of correct simulation.
> 
> The dishonest dodge of the strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT
> fake rebuttal is the most common fake rebuttal that people try
> to get way with.


Is that your reaction if your assumption is proved to be false?
If your claim turns out to be wrong? Is it dishonest to prove you wrong?

I am not changing the subject. As everybody following the thread knows, 
the claim that H halts belongs to the subject. So the CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT 
excuse is false.

I should have known. As soon as you are proved false, you try to get 
away with the accusation that it is dishonest.

But OK, I accept that you don't want a honest dialogue. You only want to 
hear supporters of your claims, all other reactions you find dishonest. 
So, you will never learn. I can no longer help you, if you refuse a 
honest dialogue.