Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 20:34:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 179
Message-ID: <v3idvb$3f51j$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$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, 02 Jun 2024 20:34:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7b2dfb52a2545f32ded9b03629a80d37";
	logging-data="3642419"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lSMJ0tu4MrmMc65xJtMeU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J/bQGtOq46Qi8DWEVMDjDO5Y+44=
In-Reply-To: <v3ibt9$3f571$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 8951

Op 02.jun.2024 om 19:59 schreef olcott:
> 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

Similarly:

When for every freaking HH/DD pair that matches the above template
HH correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly ever reaches its own return
then

we know with complete logical certainty that not a damn one of
these HH instance halts. halts, NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.

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