Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs ---
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 21:20:12 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 187
Message-ID: <v3iglc$3bklt$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$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> <v3ifmf$3f571$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 21:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d559bc984257af17c9f48cf87c7274f1";
	logging-data="3527357"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0xHaR9v8Mnq30qT72Vbaz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HKAdiys54t81hi9jpKVHflhkgI4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3ifmf$3f571$12@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10203

On 2/06/24 21:03, olcott wrote:
> 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*
> 

*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
*The direct execution of a program has the same behaviour as any correct 
simulation of the program*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========