Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v4nls7$61la$2@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:36:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4nls7$61la$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4j0h2$39gh7$3@dont-email.me> <v4k0sr$3f4m3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k44j$3fmth$1@dont-email.me> <v4m5gj$3v41v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4mmnp$1qt6$2@dont-email.me> <v4ms37$5nh5$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4mtif$3cbf$1@dont-email.me> <v4muph$1sav$1@news.muc.de>
 <v4n8ac$5d22$1@dont-email.me> <v4nk4s$17k4$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 21:36:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="198314"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4nk4s$17k4$1@news.muc.de>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6622
Lines: 131

On 6/16/24 5:06 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/16/2024 10:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:44:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> Whenever a decider is run it answers the question it is made to answer.
>>>>>> Not necessarily. Just because everyone falsely assumes that D correctly
>>>>>> simulated by H must have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D)
>>>>>> does not make this false assumption true.
> 
>>>>> You still need to explain how you can call a simulation that differs from
>>>>> the behaviour of its input "correct".
> 
>>> Indeed, you do.
> 
>>>> I have proven it many times and this proof is simply over
>>>> everyone's heads.
> 
>>> Nonsense!  How about, instead of "proving", actually explaining?  If a
>>> simulation differs from its original, it's not a simulation; it's just a
>>> random program.
> 
>>>> When I ask what your C programming skill level is, this *is not* a
>>>> rhetorical question.
> 
>>> The question has nothing to do with C programming.
> 
>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>> int H(ptr P, ptr I);
> 
>> int D(int (*x)())
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
> 
>> Unless I make every single detail 100% explicit false
>> assumptions always slip though the cracks.
> 
> No.  Every single detail just obfuscates and hides the facts.  The
> problem is you have been talking absurdities for so long you have
> probably come to believe them.  Nobody else is fooled.
> 
>> The ONLY way to make EVERY SINGLE DETAIL 100% EXPLICIT is the x86
>> programming language.
> 
> No, that's just a convenient means for obfuscation and expressing
> strawmen.
> 
>> There cannot possibly be any H that correctly emulates
>> the x86 machine code of D according to the semantics
>> of the x86 programming language such that the emulated
>> D ever reaches its own emulated final state at machine
>> address [00001f58].
> 
> Emulation, Simulation.  By definition a simulator does the same as what
> it's simulating.  If it doesn't, it's not a simulator.  Everybody else
> understands that.  Why don't you?
> 
> Are you saying above that simulators are impossible?  Everybody else has
> understood for a long time that they're not sensible, here.  But
> impossible?
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>> Once the above is understood (people quit denying verified facts).
> 
> You're lying again.  There are no verified facts in the above (which I
> snipped).
> 
>> thenn (then and only then) I can show how this applies to Turing
>> machines.
> 
> If you'd've simply stuck to turing machines all along, you could have
> avoided a lot of the confusion you've got yourself into.  Why not start
> talking about turing machines now?
> 

Because he just doesn't understand Turing Machines, so can't show what 
he want there. Also, Turing Machines don't allow him to "Cheat" the way 
he did with H and D being intermixed the way they are. Which may be why 
he has so much problem with Turing Machines, since he doesn't understand 
the restrictions that apply to what a Computation can do, so he gets 
frustrated when they don't let him do the things he needs to do, since 
they aren't actually computations.

So, he wants to do his proof with his non-equivalent machines, and then 
try to bamboozle us into thinking he can show that they are actually the 
equivalent the the Turing Machines.


And, the bigger issue is he really doesn't care about the Halting 
Problem itself, just that it is stepping stone that provided a path to 
Godel and Tarski for proofs that drive a stake in the heart of his idea 
about truth. Proofs he doesn't understand, so can't actually refute, but 
he thinks if he can show a problem with the halting problem proof, then 
he has made an attack on those other problems.

Also, his real attack on the Halting Problem is based on the somewhat 
hidden claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with the 
formation of the Halting Problem, and that allows him to redefine the 
problem, which it doesn't.

If he really wanted to work on that track, his first step needs to be to 
actually demonstrate an actual inconsistance that the Halting Problem 
generates, on the level of Russel's Naive Set Theory paradox, to provide 
grounds for wanting to re-establish the ground rules for the field. The 
problem is he knows his attempts at this didn't go well, but he won't 
admit it, so he just want to assume that we accept the proof, but we 
don't which is why ther is so much argument about "The Correct 
SImulation of D by H" as he thinks he is authorized to use that, when he 
isn't.

At best, he could talk about PO-halting (Which I call Peter Olcotts 
Other Problem, or POOP for short), but that doesn't help with his bigger 
goal.

His latest tactic of claiming that H can't understand the question is 
just more of his weirdness, showing how little he understand what 
Computations are. I think he somehow thinks "AI" can be the savior of 
the world.

>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>