Path: ...!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 15:37:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 198
Message-ID: <v3g0q4$2v3lp$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v3fu48$2ulbk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3g0b9$2n53n$17@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 22:37:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="3116729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18EXLhiSsUAki46mzFm/VBr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3tGQJ5P//j+FlnnK/L5FRoMkhWo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3g0b9$2n53n$17@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10358

On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/1/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========