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: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 13:22:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3i9os$2qu72$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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> <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> <v3hchb$39j2d$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3i0ai$3cpu7$2@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 17:22:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2980066"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3i0ai$3cpu7$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11647
Lines: 233

On 6/2/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/2/2024 4:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 21:51 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/1/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I will not discuss any other points with you until after 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you either*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Acknowledge that DD correctly simulated by HH and ⟨Ĥ⟩ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      simulated by embedded_H remain stuck in recursive 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      1 to ∞ of correct simulation or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Correctly prove otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And until you answer the question of what that actually 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means, I will reply WHO CARES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case HH is either a pure simulator that never halts or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH is a pure function that stops simulating after some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of simulated lines. The line count is stored in a local 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The pure function HH always returns the meaningless value 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of 56
>>>>>>>>>>>>> after it stops simulating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still no answer, to teh question. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can pretend that you don't understand something that you 
>>>>>>>>>>> do indeed
>>>>>>>>>>> understand into perpetuity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The key measure of dishonestly would be that you continue to say
>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't understand yet never ever point out exactly 
>>>>>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand and why you don't understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I giuess that Mean YOU don't even know what you are asking, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> though it seems that now you are admitting that your HH 
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't actually ANSWER the question, so it isn't ACTUALL a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider for any function except the "56" mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat the question and until you answer the question 
>>>>>>>>>>>> of what that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DO you mean the simulation of the TEMPLATE DD, 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Of course I don't mean that nonsense. I mean exactly what I 
>>>>>>>>>>> specified*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> which means that we CAN'T simulate the call HH as we have no 
>>>>>>>>>>>> code past point to simulate, and thus your claim is just a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, do you mean a given instance of HH simulating a given 
>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of DD, at which point we never have the 1 to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinte number of simulatons of THAT INPUT, so your claim is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> just a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>>>>>>>>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Its not that hard when one refrains from dishonesty*
>>>>>>>>>>> We can't even say that you forgot these details from one reply
>>>>>>>>>>> to the next because the details are still in this same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And every one gives a meaningless answer, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why? I don't care about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I have said, the implication of your definition of "Correct 
>>>>>>>> SImulation" means that this says NOTHING about the halting 
>>>>>>>> behavior of DD. (only not halted yet)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
>>>>>>> *or infinite* number of steps of correct emulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say it that way you claim to be confused and what I do
>>>>>>> not say it that way you claim what I say is incomplete proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHy do I care? I won't spend the effort to even try to refute 
>>>>>> something that is clearly meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have a conflict of definitions, as a given DD will 
>>>>>> only ever be simulated by ONE given HH that only simuates for one 
>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>
>>>>> You continue to either fail to understand or seemingly more likely
>>>>> simply lie about the fact that every DD correctly simulated by any
>>>>> HH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>
>>>> Only if the simulation of HH simulated by HH does not reach HH's 
>>>> return, otherwise the simulation of DD would go to line 04.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>>>>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>>>>> *THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========