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 14:43:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3fq3s$2n53n$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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> <v3fi55$2n53o$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fiq7$2rsbs$5@dont-email.me> <v3flc5$2n53o$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3flm8$2sm3s$1@dont-email.me> <v3fm1e$2n53n$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fmlc$2sogn$1@dont-email.me> <v3fncn$2n53n$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fo1p$2t1ac$2@dont-email.me> <v3fori$2n53o$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fpdf$2t7mj$2@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 18:43:08 -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: <v3fpdf$2t7mj$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11135
Lines: 228

On 6/1/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 1:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/1/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2024 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/24 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can pretend that you don't understand something that you do 
>>>>>>>>> indeed
>>>>>>>>> understand into perpetuity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key measure of dishonestly would be that you continue to say
>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand yet never ever point out exactly what 
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> don't understand and why you don't understand it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Of course I don't mean that nonsense. I mean exactly what I 
>>>>>>>>> specified*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Its not that hard when one refrains from dishonesty*
>>>>>>>>> We can't even say that you forgot these details from one reply
>>>>>>>>> to the next because the details are still in this same post.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And every one gives a meaningless answer, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
>>>>>>> number of steps of correct emulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? I don't care about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have said, the implication of your definition of "Correct 
>>>>>> SImulation" means that this says NOTHING about the halting 
>>>>>> behavior of DD. (only not halted yet)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
>>>>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
>>>>> *or infinite* number of steps of correct emulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I say it that way you claim to be confused and what I do
>>>>> not say it that way you claim what I say is incomplete proof.
>>>>
>>>> WHy do I care? I won't spend the effort to even try to refute 
>>>> something that is clearly meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have a conflict of definitions, as a given DD will only 
>>>> ever be simulated by ONE given HH that only simuates for one number 
>>>> of steps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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       }
>>>
>>> You continue to either fail to understand or seemingly more likely
>>> simply lie about the fact that every DD correctly simulated by any
>>> HH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>>>
>>
>> Except that even YOU agreed that it did.
>>
> 
> *I never agreed that THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) HALTS*

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========