Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 10:51:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v3fg1m$2riae$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$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>
 <v3enpm$2mn41$2@dont-email.me> <v3fe2a$2r6h9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3feus$2re6f$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 17:51:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="3000654"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zlNYX9d9HfCBxqKo8u0xo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/nHDAilH/uUNPZSCuJOCHivqeW0=
In-Reply-To: <v3feus$2re6f$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5652

On 6/1/2024 10:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:17 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Halting criteria are the same for all functions. If the direct execution 
> of HH(DD,DD) proves that HH halts, then the direct execution of DD also 
> proves that DD halts.

*HH is required to report on the behavior that its input specifies*
HH is not allowed to report on the behavior of DD(DD) {the computation
that itself is contained within}.

I am not going to go over this again and again in every reply.
I will create a new post that explains all of these details
in one place.

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