Path: ...!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: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 10:30:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 197
Message-ID: <v3feqn$2rdp3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v3f09p$2n53o$1@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 17:30:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="2996003"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19aAdIMWlsyqyt7LcBzci/T"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wDewWjZ4u1Ev2sMVK8LCJpPbMiM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3f09p$2n53o$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10179

On 6/1/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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 

*I will not discuss any other points with you until after you either*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========