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: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:07:14 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3ift2$2qu72$12@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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> <v3icns$3f51j$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3idr5$3f571$3@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 19:07:14 -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: <v3idr5$3f571$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 13128
Lines: 257

On 6/2/24 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/2/2024 1:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 16:41 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========