Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 12:27:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3fi55$2n53o$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@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> <v3fgat$2n53n$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fhan$2rsbs$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 16:27:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2856056"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3fhan$2rsbs$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4256
Lines: 57

On 6/1/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/1/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> *I will not discuss any other points with you until after you either*
>>> (a) Acknowledge that DD correctly simulated by HH and ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
>>>      simulated by embedded_H remain stuck in recursive simulation for
>>>      1 to ∞ of correct simulation or
>>>
>>> (b) Correctly prove otherwise.
>>
>> And until you answer the question of what that actually means, I will 
>> reply WHO CARES.
>>
> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01       int DD(ptr p)
> 02       {
> 03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
> 04         if (Halt_Status)
> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
> 06         return Halt_Status;
> 07       }
> 08
> 09       int main()
> 10       {
> 11         HH(DD,DD);
> 12         return 0;
> 13       }
> 
> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of HH/DD
> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own simulated
> line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by HH.
> 
> In this case HH is either a pure simulator that never halts or
> HH is a pure function that stops simulating after some finite number
> of simulated lines. The line count is stored in a local variable.
> The pure function HH always returns the meaningless value of 56
> after it stops simulating.
> 

So, still no answer, to teh question. I giuess that Mean YOU don't even 
know what you are asking, though it seems that now you are admitting 
that your HH doesn't actually ANSWER the question, so it isn't ACTUALL a 
decider for any function except the "56" mapping.

I will repeat the question and until you answer the question of what 
that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES.

DO you mean the simulation of the TEMPLATE DD, which means that we CAN'T 
simulate the call HH as we have no code past point to simulate, and thus 
your claim is just a LIE.

Or, do you mean a given instance of HH simulating a given instance of 
DD, at which point we never have the 1 to infinte number of simulatons 
of THAT INPUT, so your claim is just a LIE.