Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 21:08:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <v3dvr3$2jgjd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$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>
 <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me> <v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me>
 <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org> <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org> <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org> <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org> <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org> <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org> <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dqka$2lfup$4@i2pn2.org> <v3dsev$2f6ul$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3dtt4$2lfup$5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 04:08:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="2736749"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19GSyJ458+w/uAuRNrMHORK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8l4MrbHaHOe1U4hQ7Kg3iINls0M=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3dtt4$2lfup$5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8096

On 5/31/2024 8:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/31/24 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/31/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/31/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
>>>>>>>>>>>> the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address 00001c47.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why should I, since that isn't what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *To me that looks like you know that*
>>>>>>>>>> *you have been busted in a lie and are backing down*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no, YOU are LYING RIGHT HERE AND NOW.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove that I said that the simulation by HH made it there, or 
>>>>>>>>> admit to being a DAMNED LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What I have been saying is the the DIRECT EXDCUTION of DD, and 
>>>>>>>>> the CORRECT (and complete) simulation of the input to HH by an 
>>>>>>>>> actual UTM will get there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That has always been the dishonest dodge strawman deception
>>>>>>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal regarding
>>>>>>>> the behavior of DD correctly simulated by pure function HH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it is your talking about the "correctly simulated by HH" that 
>>>>>>> is the dishonest dodge, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
>>>>>> the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
>>>>>> machine address 00001c47.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never said it could. But haven't looked hard enough to be willing 
>>>>> to say it can't, but then, who cares, it doesn't say a thing about 
>>>>> the real halting problem, since H's simulation isn't "correct" by a 
>>>>> definition that relates simulation to non-halting behavior,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
>>>> Linz(1990:234)
>>>
>>> Right, and that is talking about runnig the Turing Machine, not 
>>> simulating a representation of it.
>>>
>>
>> DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own simulated
>> final state. This is conclusively proven beyond all possible doubt
>> by the x86 machine code of DD.
> 
> Depends on the specification of HH, as has beeen shown.
> 
>>
>> You can lie about this and try to get away with changing the subject.
>> What you cannot do is show that it is not true.
> 
> But I don't try to claim one side of the other, as it isn't relevent.
> 
>>
>> *Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
>> *we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*
> 
> But if it isn't relevent, why are we looking at it.
> 
> It seems you just WANT to waste you time trying to convince people about 
> something they don't care about.
> 
>>
>> *Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
>> *we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*
>>
>> *Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
>> *we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*
>>
>>>>
>>>> *If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
>>>> *final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
>>> Nope, Where did that definition say ANYTHING about one machine 
>>> simulationg another.
>>>
>>
>> Trying to get away with saying that you don't "believe in" UTMs
>> can't possibly fool anyone that knows what UTMs are.
>>
> 
> But I DO beleive in UTMs, and know exact what they do.
> 
> Your embedded_H can NOT actually be a UTM, or neither H nor embedded_H 
> are deciders.
> 
> PERIOD,.
> 
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> When embedded_H <is> a UTM then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩. In this
>> case embedded_H fails to be a decider, however it also proves:
> 
> And then, while THAT H^ is non-halting, H isn't a decider.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>> own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ for any embedded_H based on a UTM
>> that only simulates some finite sequence of steps.
> 
> But that only apply *if* embedded_H (and thus H) *IS* a UTM, if it 
> aborts its simuliation, then its
> 
>>
>> "...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
>> Linz(1990:234)
>>
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>> own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
> 
> And and embedded_H that actually correct simulates the input, by 
> Computaiton Theory definitions is the UTM that, by definition, doesn't 
> abort its simulation.
> 
>>
>> *The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
>> *The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
>> *The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
> 
> Only if embedded_H and H are ACTUALLY UTMs, 

*AS LONG AS 1 to ∞ steps of*
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach their
own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
THEN *The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*

All the while you try to dishonestly dodge this with your strawman
deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal blocks you from discussing
anything else with me.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer