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 11:56:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3fgat$2n53n$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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>
 <v3feqn$2rdp3$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 15:56:13 -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: <v3feqn$2rdp3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11365
Lines: 225

On 6/1/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========