Path: ...!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: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 07:51:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3hmbv$2q5op$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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>
 <v3gp5p$36pdg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 11:51:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2955033"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3gp5p$36pdg$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10104
Lines: 221

On 6/1/24 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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?

Nope. But you need to show that each rock IS a five pound rock.

IF you weigh one rock, and find it is 5 pounds, doesn't mean that 
anothoer rock  rock that looks about the same is also 5 pouds,

You do seem to like you Herring in Red sauce, don't you.

The comparison here is that you have only "weighed" a very few of your 
DDs, only those built on an HH that NEVER aborts have been determined to 
not halt. The others are just haven't-yet-halted-after-n-steps, but we 
actually DO know that they WILL Halt after more.

> 
>> 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?
Nope, unless of course you still need to weight them to show they ARE 5 
pound rocks.

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

That isn't even your original claim you were asking about.

Your claim wasn't about "Halting" because that is easily disproven, but 
that there correct PARTIAL simulation done by H never reaches the 
statement after the call.

You are just showing your true colors, that you just don't understand 
what you are talkinag about and get your lies confused.

> 
>>>
>>> *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.


Nope. Try to actually PROVE that.

Since we can prove that they DO Halts, at least all of the DD built on 
an HH that returns 0 for HH(DD,DD), it should be impossible to prove 
that they never halt, unless your logic system =has gone inconsistent,

> 
>> 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.

WRONG. You have been proven wrong on this, so your repeating it just 
shows you to be a LIAR.

(You failed to accept the challange, so I can call you that)

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

EVERY DD built on a HH that returns 0 for HH(DD,DD) Halts.

EVERY HH that doesn't abort its simulaiton, never answers.

So NO DD has been correctly predicted to be non-halting, so

*NO* HH ever return the right answer

So *NO* Peter Olcott has shown the Halting Problem refuted, and just 
shows that he is nothing but an ignorant pathological liar that doen't 
understand what he is talking about.

> 
>>>
>>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========