Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 07:22:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3f09p$2n53o$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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>
 <v3dvr3$2jgjd$1@dont-email.me> <v3e0rj$2lfup$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3e1m6$2jmc2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 11:22:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2856056"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v3e1m6$2jmc2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9695
Lines: 189

On 5/31/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/31/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/31/24 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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*
>>
>> And each of those is of a DIFFERENT input, 
> 
> Every element of the infinite set of embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ has this same
> property

But that property is a straw man, the question is does H^ (H^) Halt, or 
equivalently, the ACTUAL (by the definition of a UTM) CORRECT SIMULATION 
if (H^) (H^) Halt, for that particular H^. And for all the H^ that are 
built on an H that is a decider that answers Qn, H^, and the actual 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========