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,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3
 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 19:37:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4l8jn$3n5d$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4kf3h$3h3iu$7@dont-email.me> <v4kfoa$2218$19@i2pn2.org>
 <v4l2mr$3l6pa$1@dont-email.me> <v4l6gg$3n5d$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4l87j$3m8b0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 23:37:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="122029"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4l87j$3m8b0$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3018
Lines: 45

On 6/15/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/24 12:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>  > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H 
>>>>> computes
>>>>>  >> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
>>>>>  >> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
>>>>>  >> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
>>>>>  >> behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>>>>>  >>
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > Why? I don't claim it can.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions
>>>>> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06]
>>>>> are simulated/executed.
>>>>>
>>>>> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges
>>>>> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D
>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the steps of D correctly simulated by H will EXACTLY match the 
>>>> steps of D directly executed, until H just gives up and guesses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
>>> reach its simulated final state at machine address [00000d1d]
>>> after one recursive simulation and the same applies for 2,3,...N
>>> recursive simulations then we can abort the simulated input and
>>> correctly report that D correctly simulated by H DOES NOT HALT.
>>
>> Nope. Because an aborted simulation doesn't say anything about Halting,
>>
> 
> It is the mathematical induction that says this.
> 
WHAT "Mathematical Induction"?

You haven't shown the required pieces for an inductive proof.

I doubt you even know what you need to do, let alone be able to do it.