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 19:02:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3g9a1$2n53n$25@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$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>
 <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> <v3g7e9$2n53n$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g7r8$30c96$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 23:02:25 -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: <v3g7r8$30c96$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6341
Lines: 113

On 6/1/24 6:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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, 
> 
> I don't want to be harsh, especially because Christ says to love
> even your enemies and at worst you are only an adversary...
> 
> *The above never mentions anything about any simulation being aborted*
> *The above never mentions anything about any simulation being aborted*
> *The above never mentions anything about any simulation being aborted*

So, why did HH stop simulating after some n steps?

Did it reach a final state in the simulation? if not, it ABORTED its 
simulation.

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


Nope, prove you don't know what you are talking about, or are just a 
liar destined for Gehenna,