Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 18:30:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3g7e9$2n53n$22@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v3g3np$2vk55$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:30:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2856055"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3g3np$2vk55$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6729
Lines: 126

On 6/1/24 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

But since the simulation was aborted, it doen't say anything about the 
halting status of the machine being simulated.

PERID.

Try to prove me wrong. Remember, HALTING is a property of the MACHINE 
(the PROGRAM EXECUTED, not simulated).

> 
> *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*

No it does not.

Because Halting is a property of the MACHINE DESCRIBED, not the partial 
simulaiton by H. you partial simulation show NOTHING.


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

Nope, because you said above that the input to HH(DD,DD) does not halt, 
and that is a statment about the machine/program DD, not its simulation.

> 
> *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*
> 

Nope, YOU have made you ignorantly dishonest claims on every point for 
appparently the last 20 years.

You just don't know what you words actually mean, because it seems you 
just have lost all contact with reality due to your brainwashing 
yourself to believe your own lies.