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 11:49:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3ffua$2n53n$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$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> <v3enpm$2mn41$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3fe2a$2r6h9$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:49:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2856055"; 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: <v3fe2a$2r6h9$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5298
Lines: 81

On 6/1/24 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 01:57 schreef olcott:
>>> 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)
>>>
>>> *If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
>>> *final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
>>>
>>
>> Similarly:
>> *If HH correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
>> *final state then HH correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
>>
>> This is on-topic, because you claim is that HH halts, but your own 
>> words show that it is not. Your phantasy HH that simulates and halts 
>> does not exist.
>>
>>
> 
> The directly executed HH(DD,DD) halts because it stops simulating
> DD as soon as it sees that DD has a repeating state. I am beginning
> to suspect that you intend to continue being disingenuous.
> 

But that doesn't say that SIMULATED HH also halts.

Since you are claiming that halting is defined by the correct simulation 
by HH, then you need to accept that by that definition HH doesn't halt.

If you claim that HH halts becuase its direct exectuion halts, then you 
have to accept that DD(DD) Halts to, as that is what its direct 
exectuion does.

You only out is to admit that "Correct Simulation by H" isn't the same 
thing has "Halting" at which point you are admitting that your criteria 
isn't about HALTING.