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
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:27:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3gaot$2n53n$26@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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>
 <v3g80k$30c96$2@dont-email.me> <v3g99u$2n53n$24@i2pn2.org>
 <v3g9tc$30pbl$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 23:27:25 -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: <v3g9tc$30pbl$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5202
Lines: 92

On 6/1/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/1/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Show me where I said anything in the above spec about an aborted 
>>> simulation.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>> When every possible which way DD correctly simulated by HH never reaches
>>> past its own simulated line 03 then
>>
>> And a simulation either goes until it reaches a final state of the 
>> machine it is simulating, or it aborted its simulation.
>>
> 
> 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       }
> 
> When every DD correctly simulated by any HH cannot possibly reach
> past its own simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation
> of DD by HH then we have exhaustively examined every possible HH/DD
> pair and each element has of this infinite set has the same property.

So?

It doesn't matter how many aborted simulaiton you do of a given input 
(and each HH simulated a DIFFERENT input since it simulated the INSTANCE 
of the template with a different HH)

The ONLY simulation that actually showed that ITS input was no-halting 
was the HH that never aborted, and it didn't answer.

Every other HH has a DIFFERENT INPUT and would be LYING to say it had 
that other input.

> 
> *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*

Nope. Aborted simulation don't prove anything.

So either HH found a final state, and thus should have said Halting, or 
it aborted its simulation and doesn't prove anything.

> 
>> Nope, prove you don't know what you are talking about, or are just a 
>> liar destined for Gehenna,
>>
> 
> Are you willing to bet your soul on the claim that you believe
> that you are telling the truth? I do believe that I am telling
> the truth and I also believe that you already know that I am
> correct about the above statements that I made.
> 

Sure. Because I know what I know.

Are you really willing to bet yours?
Remember, you know you have made mistakes on this in the past.

After all, you just claimed that you HH never aborted its simulations 
(or at least implied that as you said the you never mentioned a 
simulaiton being aborted as a reason to ignore that aborted simulation 
don't prove non-halting behavior).

So, you just proved yourself to be a liar, as either they SHOULD be 
saying Halting because they stopped because they completed, or they 
should be still simulating, but they only did a finite number of steps, 
or the aborted their simulation.

How's the lake?


Or, since you lost it already, does it not matter any more?