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
Subject: Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:08:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v44r3n$3egp9$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kjs9$3u7ng$1@dont-email.me> <v3l16f$5d3$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3mj84$bq2d$1@dont-email.me> <v3njiv$gatu$9@dont-email.me>
 <v3p37n$sb6j$1@dont-email.me> <v3poj0$v133$6@dont-email.me>
 <v3rvri$1ervp$1@dont-email.me> <v3sene$1gra7$10@dont-email.me>
 <v3sjer$1i8m9$1@dont-email.me> <v3sjvt$1i9ju$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3u8vq$1v5pb$1@dont-email.me> <v3v4bi$22vrk$7@dont-email.me>
 <v3vshp$3ao52$6@i2pn2.org> <v401ga$28q9r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v40sqs$2gclk$1@dont-email.me> <v41jk7$2jqdk$6@dont-email.me>
 <v43nvo$3at9r$1@dont-email.me> <v44aki$3harn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:08:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3621673"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v44aki$3harn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4194
Lines: 87

On 6/9/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-08 12:42:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/8/2024 1:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-07 22:27:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 4:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 09:09:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 15:18:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All halt deciders are only allowed to report on the actual 
>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>> their actual input.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>> Required even! And if they simulate, that simulation must match the
>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
>>>>> be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
>>>>> Some people here have that.
>>>>
>>>> Not true. An expert of simulation and simulators need not know
>>>> anything about x86. If you cannot correct a false assumption
>>>> about simulations without expertise in the x86 programming language
>>>> then you cannot correct it with that expertise, either.
>>>
>>> Basically you are admitting that you don't have what it takes
>>> and trying to incorrect get away with sating that it doesn't matter.
>>
>> I do know but that is not relevant to this discussion.
>>
>>> People that know C have been able to understand this too.
>>
>> I do know C, at least older versions. But that is not relevant,
>> either.
>>
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
> 
> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
> {
>    P(I);
> }
> 
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
>    HHH(x, x);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DDD,DDD);
> }
> 
> If you can't tell what is going on there then you
> lack the minimum required prerequisite knowledge.

But is irrelevent to the case described below, since your above HHH is 
NOT a simulating decider.

You are just proving your logic is based on telling lies.


> 
>>> For people that are stuck in rebuttal mode I must make it as
>>> precise as arithmetic so rebuttal looks ridiculously foolish.
>>
>> Roughly so. Otherwise people who are not stuck in rebuttal mode
>> will look ridiculously foolish.
>>
>>> This did work on Richard. He went from denying what I said
>>> with the strawman deception to saying that he never said it
>>> was incorrect.
>>
>> It does not really matter whether your straw man and other
>> deceptions are incorrect. Being a deception is incorrect
>> enough.
>>
>> The easiest way to avoid lying about other people is to
>> say nothing about them.
>>
>