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 14:51:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <v3fu48$2ulbk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <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>
 <v3fqpt$2tjjm$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 21:51:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="3102068"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VqFhGHJnojQXVLvjHh1YM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vkjc44fgRuTJvUnoGEOSr99oiJk=
In-Reply-To: <v3fqpt$2tjjm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9157

On 6/1/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jun.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Only if the simulation of HH simulated by HH does not reach HH's return, 
> otherwise the simulation of DD would go to line 04.
> 
>>
>> *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*
>>
> 
> If true: The input to HH is both DD and HH called by DD, so both DD and 
> HH do not halt, but keep starting new instances of each other.
> However, HH is required to halt, but it doesn't. So, the HH that halts 
> is phantasy.

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