Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:04:53 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <v3frcl$2tjjm$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@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> <v3fhmr$2ro2o$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3fhv0$2rsbs$4@dont-email.me> <v3fpun$2t8n0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fq64$2teib$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 21:04:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7400557857026e3b66e59a6887e93b1d";
	logging-data="3067510"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xGrhDk3A6mnWeHNUllXoy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yzpge61Exd1Fbk67jUdDMb5zHJA=
In-Reply-To: <v3fq64$2teib$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5661

Op 01.jun.2024 om 20:44 schreef olcott:
> On 6/1/2024 1:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/1/2024 11:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 18:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The simulated D never reaches past line 03, because the simulated HH 
>>>> never halts in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of HH by HH.
>>>> I have told you that so many times.
>>>> HH is required to halt, thus HH does not match the requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>> HH correctly reports that because DD calls HH(DD,DD) in
>>> recursive simulation that DD never halts.
>>>
>>> HHH(HH,DD,DD) would report that HH halts.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe. And H1 (DD,DD) would report that DD halts.
>>
>> In the recursive simulation by HH, neither the simulation of DD, nor 
>> the simulation of HH halts. If one of them would halt, the other one 
>> would halt as well.
>>
>> So HH 'correctly' reports that both DD and HH do not halt, because 
>> they both keep starting an instance of each other.
> 
> 
> I will not respond to any of your replies while you continue to play
> head games.
> 
> *Changing the subject away from this is construed as a head game*

Bad excuse. I am not changing the subject. I show that the requirements 
of HH in the subject are contradictory.

> DD correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach
> past its own line 03 in any finite number of steps of correct
> simulation.

Only, because the simulation of HH did not halt.

> 
> In case you didn't know pure functions must halt because they must
> return a value.
> 

I know that HH is required to halt, but your own words implies that it 
doesn't. So apparently your HH does not match its requirements.

Correct me if I am wrong and show the trace of the simulated HH that 
reaches its final state and the next 10 instructions.