Path: ...!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 22:33:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <v3gp5p$36pdg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v3gaot$2n53n$26@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 05:33:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353";
	logging-data="3368368"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jIEPCYxlnrB6Q+vD8D7Mo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lMT/lAOlTjLojcs9KrIzmZWETJs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3gaot$2n53n$26@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7048

On 6/1/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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)
> 

In other words one cannot prove that every five pound rock weighs
more than every three pound rock, one must weigh them one-at-a-time?

> 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.
> 

In other words (because each rock is different) one cannot prove that 
every five pound rock weighs more than every three pound rock, one must 
weigh them one-at-a-time?

Every HH/DD pair of the infinite of every possible HH/DD pair
DD correctly simulated by HH NEVER HALTS.

>>
>> *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.
> 

When for each element of the infinite set of every HH/DD pair DD
correctly simulated by HH cannot get past its own simulated line 03
then we know that none of the DD inputs to each HH(DD,DD) ever halts.

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

Every HH/DD pair of the infinite of every possible HH/DD pair
DD correctly simulated by HH NEVER HALTS.

But maybe some of the do halt? No NONE OF THEM HALT !!!

>>
>>> 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).
> 

I need to check that the words that I say are decoded in your mind
the way that I encoded them. I did never mention abort. You can
correctly construe simulating a finite number of instructions as
equivalent to aborting. I needed to make sure how you are decoding
my words.

IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE DENYING THE VERIFIED FACTS OF SOME OF MY
WORDS. IT DOES SEEM LIKE YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE DENYING VERIFIED FACTS.

> 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.
> 

None of the infinite set of HH/DD has a DD correctly simulated
by HH that halts. You have been using double-talk to avoid this
verified fact. I am using paraphrasing to make sure that we are
using common meanings.

> How's the lake?
> 
> 
> Or, since you lost it already, does it not matter any more?

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