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 --- canonical
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:27:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <v3g3np$2vk55$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@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>
 <MPG.40c4fbcb474992459896fd@reader.eternal-september.org>
 <v3f9ha$2qh0t$1@dont-email.me> <v3ffpc$2n53n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fgfb$2riae$2@dont-email.me> <v3fh1a$2n53o$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fhkr$2rsbs$2@dont-email.me> <v3fig4$2n53n$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fj8h$2rsbs$6@dont-email.me> <v3g0bg$2n53n$18@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g0n2$2v3lp$2@dont-email.me> <v3g329$2n53n$21@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 23:27:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="3133605"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LWrm9nUte6XAiFN9RAFrN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pgP5jUr0zkuZEKVMmUtCrzWhzMc=
In-Reply-To: <v3g329$2n53n$21@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5851

On 6/1/2024 4:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/1/24 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/1/24 12:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 10:00 AM, olcott wrote: >> DD correctly simulated by 
>>>>>>>>> HH remains stuck in recursive simulation
>>>>>>>>>> all the time it is simulated even when an infinite number of 
>>>>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>>>> are simulated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, are you admitting that HH just gets stuck and doesn't 
>>>>>>>>> answer when asked HH(DD,DD)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH remains stuck in 
>>>>>>>> recursive simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So? Since you definition of "Correct Simulation" is 
>>>>>>> non-canonical, that doesn't mean anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When the "canonical" definition tries to get away with refuting 
>>>>>> this*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't "Refute" that, 
>>>>
>>>> *Then what I said stands unrefuted*
>>>> *Then what I said stands unrefuted*
>>>> *Then what I said stands unrefuted*
>>>
>>> And unproven, and still meaningless.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *We can't move on to any other point until*
>>>> (a) You acknowledge that my above statement about the behavior of the
>>>> x86 machine code of DD is irrefutable and applies to the C source 
>>>> code version of DD and applies to the Linz proof.
>>>>
>>>> (b) You correctly refute what I said above about the behavior of the
>>>> x86 machine code of DD.
>>>
>>> But why do we care about the fact that all your HH that answer just 
>>> gave up on their simulation before the actual canonically correct 
>>> simulation would have reached a final state, 
>> It seems to me (and I may be wrong you may be confused)
>> That we cannot move on to any other point simply because
>> you are simply too freaking dishonest.
>>
>> You use moving on to other points to endlessly avoid any
>> closure on any point.
>>
> 
> 
> We can not move on, because you want to base your arguement on falsehoods.
> 

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.

*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*

The reason why the behavior of D(D) is irrelevant can
be discussed ONLY AFTER WE GET CLOSURE ON THE ABOVE POINT.

*You have dishonestly dodged every single point for three years*
*You have dishonestly dodged every single point for three years*
*You have dishonestly dodged every single point for three years*
*You have dishonestly dodged every single point for three years*

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