Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 11:01:28 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v3eo18$2mn41$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 11:01:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7400557857026e3b66e59a6887e93b1d";
	logging-data="2841729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+y6QhemRzSSzbmWkp+xhRY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ihweTo4fyji2HdE5rsukUJddZQU=
In-Reply-To: <v3dsev$2f6ul$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4998

Op 01.jun.2024 om 03:10 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

Similarly:

HH correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own simulated
final state. This is conclusively proven beyond all possible doubt.

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.

So your HH that simulates and halts is just phantasy.