Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 --- canonical
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 09:47:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v3i0m9$3cpu7$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v39agi$1jiql$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> <v3hdoq$39nv5$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 16:47:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353";
	logging-data="3565511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wg8rPLO3uX18j9scoJo/i"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7KRPtPsagjRFn6iif7PzWP2GtiU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3hdoq$39nv5$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6207

On 6/2/2024 4:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jun.2024 om 23:27 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Similarly:
> Every HH correctly simulated by itself of the infinite set of HH/DD
> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own simulated
> return in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of HH by HH.
> 

DD correctly simulated by HH includes HH correctly simulating itself
simulating DD as an intrinsic aspect of DD correctly simulated by HH.
*It is only the outermost directly executed HH that is required to halt*

When an input DD gets instances of itself HH stuck in recursive
simulation this input is rejected as non-halting.


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