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: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite
 string transformation rules
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 19:41:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me> <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> <v4apjs$19rnv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:41:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5389
Lines: 103

On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
>>>>>>>>> business of H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>>>>>>> is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course there is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
>>>>> DDD terminates normally.
>>>>
>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
>>>>
>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter 
>>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>
>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
>>> for halt decider H.
>>
>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the 
>> input when directly run.
>>
> 
> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
> 

NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is 
whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it.

And the answer is no.


> *A LEAP OF FAITH DOES NOT COUNT IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION*
> *SHOW ME THE DETAILED STEPS*

WHo needs a leap of "faith"

We can look at it from the higher level, and not get into the details of 
this H (that you don't provide here).

Since H(D,D) is claimed to correctly return 0, then we KNOW that the 
direct exection of D(D), when it calls H(D,D) will eventually see that 
call return with the value of 0. This follows from the fact that H is 
claimed to be a pure function, and thus ALL calls to it with the same 
input MUST produce the same result, thus simple inspection of the code 
at the C programming level shows that D(D) Must Halt, and thus the UTM 
simulstion of the input to H, that represents that input must also halt.

Your FALSE claim that H is supposed to report on its non-existant or 
mis-defined "correct simulation" is just proved to be the lie it is, as 
you have NEVER been able to show any source that supports it, only your 
invalid logic that it is the only thing it could be, even though it 
isn't defined that way (showing your logic process is based on lies 
being an acceptable method to do things).

> 
> _D()
> [00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
> [00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
> [00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
> [00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
> [00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
> [00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
> [00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
> [00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
> [00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
> [00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
> [00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
> [00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
> [00000d1d](01) c3          ret
> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
> 
>