Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 15:11:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <v3fv9j$2utfl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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>
 <v3frcl$2tjjm$2@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 22:11:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="3110389"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XkAp3PPQm0v9mCqiVnL9V"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RjlywP4QGmoNJdpUWb8V+j6SF64=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3frcl$2tjjm$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6196

On 6/1/2024 2:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
> 

Pages 4-5 of
*The 2021-09-26 version of my first paper on simulating halt deciders*
*Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation 


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer