Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 14:13:14 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3icnq$2qu71$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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> <v3hmbv$2q5op$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3hv26$3bkv5$10@dont-email.me> <v3i9o8$2qu72$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ibt9$3f571$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 18:13:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2980065"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v3ibt9$3f571$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9636
Lines: 200

On 6/2/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/2/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/2/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/2/2024 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Semantic tautologies are self-evident truth that prove themselves.
>>> It is a fact that every five pound rock weights more than any
>>> three pound rock. No need to weigh any rocks.
>>
>> Right, so you don't need to weigh a five pound rock to know it is five 
>> bpounds.
>>
>>>
>>> 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       }
>>>
>>> Likewise we correctly deduce that for every HH/DD pair of the
>>> infinite set of all HH/DD pairs that match the above template
>>> every DD correctly simulated by HH never reaches past its own
>>> simulated line 03, thus never halts.
>>
> 
> When for every freaking HH/DD pair that matches the above template
> DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly ever reaches past its
> own simulated line 03 then
> 
> we know with complete logical certainty that not a damn one of
> these DD instance halts. halts, NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.

Nope, and you are just proving you are totally out of touch with reality.

EVERY DD built on an HH that returns 0 for HH(DD,DD) will Halt.

Remember, HALTING is a property of the ACTUAL MACHINE, and not 
necessarily shown by partial simulations.

So, since it has been shown (and you even agreed at one point) that 
DD(DD) will Halt (your agreement was for D(D) ), that IS the fact, and 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========