Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!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 17:40:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 284
Message-ID: <v3g80k$30c96$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v3g0q4$2v3lp$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3g2t2$2n53n$20@i2pn2.org> <v3g3ja$2vho5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3g7eb$2n53n$23@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 00:40:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353";
	logging-data="3158310"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185rT2qh8qM9vPrdk1WELIM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YwviSJxs3+/Etq6IiMMdThYxNcw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3g7eb$2n53n$23@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 14122

On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/1/24 5:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/1/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/1/24 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========