Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs ---
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:03:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v3ifmf$3f571$12@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3elpv$2mjca$1@dont-email.me> <v3fdif$2r6gg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3h9af$3974i$1@dont-email.me> <v3htmb$3bkv5$7@dont-email.me>
 <v3ie97$3f51j$7@dont-email.me> <v3iemc$3f571$7@dont-email.me>
 <v3ifb1$3f51j$12@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 21:03:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353";
	logging-data="3642593"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+CsPFpltkgCzSxwpQKb2xk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QDGDMjmKMkgMqQevFB8ZoRBAOtc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3ifb1$3f51j$12@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6059

On 6/2/2024 1:57 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 02.jun.2024 om 20:46 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/2/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 15:56 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/2/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-01 15:09:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *two dozen people were simply wrong*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve
>>>>>>> a subject line? I would think that people who are right are
>>>>>>> more interesting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem 
>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>> Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in
>>>>>> another reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> The word "this" above does not denote anything so the first sentence
>>>>> does not mean anything. The word "same" in the second sentence refers
>>>>> to "this" in the first sentnece and therefore does not denote, either,
>>>>> so the second sentence does not say anything either. So the third
>>>>> sentence says that you covevered nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that
>>>>>> the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three 
>>>>>> years IS
>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you claim that these two dozen people are wrong does not show
>>>>> anything. It probably wouldn't even if you could show that they
>>>>> really were wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only one that I am aware that is not wrong about the behavior
>>>> that a simulating halt decider must report on is myself.
>>>>
>>>> Only software engineers will understand that DD correctly simulated
>>>> by HH had different behavior than DD(DD). Comp Sci people allow Comp 
>>>> Sci
>>>> dogma to overrule verified facts.
>>>>
>>>> When I pinned Richard down on this he simply said that he does not care
>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD).
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that DD correctly simulated by HH <is> the behavior that
>>>> the input to HH(DD,DD) specifies. Deciders are ONLY accountable for
>>>> their actual inputs. Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS...
>>>>
>>>> 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       }
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Only because the call to HH at [00001c2e] does not return, because HH 
>>> does not reach its own return in any finite (or infinite) number of 
>>> steps of correct emulation.
>>>
>>
>> When HH correctly simulates DD and DD calls the simulated HH(DD,DD)
>> to simulate itself again
>>
>> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
>> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
>> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
>> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
> 
> HH must halt. Therefore, a correct simulation of HH must halt, too. If 
> it doesn't, either the simulation is incorrect, or HH does not halt.
> 

Maybe you have ADD like some of my reviewers where repetition helps

*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*

*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*
*The directly executed HH must halt No simulated input must halt*

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