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: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 22:45:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3ojg2$328eb$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3og6b$328ec$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v3ogh9$pi6u$1@dont-email.me> <v3oi5t$328ec$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v3oifv$psat$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 02:45:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3219915"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3oifv$psat$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3414
Lines: 65

On 6/4/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/4/2024 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/4/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/4/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/24 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact that the 
>>>>> above
>>>>> link conclusively proves that DD <is> correctly simulated by HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has been just like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and 
>>>>> they
>>>>> persistently deny that there ever was any pie as this pie drips from
>>>>> their face.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem iks you use the WRONG DEFINITION of "Simulated 
>>>> Correctly" to allow the simulation to say anything about the 
>>>> behavior of the machine being simulated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I conclusively proved otherwise in the above link*
>>
>> You CAN'T provd that a definition is wrong.
>>
> 
> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*
> *Try and provide a counter-example or implicitly admit that you cannot*

What are you asking for a counter example of?

I said definition are always correct and you can't prove one wrong.

There is no counter-example to that.

If you want a counter example to you claim of correct simulation, DD(DD) 
is the counter example. You claim that you can show a "Correct 
Simulation" of it proves non-halting behavior, when the actual behavior 
of that machine is Halting, so it CAN'T be non-halting.

> 
> The behavior that a machine description specifies to a UTM
> IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS FINITE STRING
> YOU ARE SIMPLY VERY CONFUSED
> 
> 

Right, and a UTM simulates the input to EXACTLY repoduce the behavior of 
the machine it describes.

So, HH(DD,DD), to be a Halt Decider must answer to if UTM(DD,DD) WHERE 
THAT DD IS STILL PAIRED TO HH, will halt, which means if DD(DD) will halt.

Since DD(DD) will halt, and thus UTM(DD,DD) will halt, if HH(DD,DD) 
returns 0, that answer can not be correct.

PERIOD.

BY DEFINITION, one you even just agreed to.

Perhaps your problem is you forget the defintion of a UTM, it isn't 
"just a simulator" but it is a machine that EXACTLY REPODUCES THE 
BEHAVIOR of the machine described by its input.