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: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:47:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5frvg$14bcm$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v58ql8$9g3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v597ju$brmn$2@dont-email.me> <v5b7f8$qu74$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btit$v0vb$5@dont-email.me> <v5bub0$vagk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e3ou$1ge18$2@dont-email.me> <v5eg5j$1ikpr$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 01:47:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1191318"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5eg5j$1ikpr$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2776
Lines: 54

On 6/25/24 9:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2024 4:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-24 14:03:12 +0000, immibis said:
>>
>>> On 24/06/24 15:50, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:23:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> When the head line has the words "these verified facts" the 
>>>>>>> message should
>>>>>>> first tell what facts are "these verified facts" and who verified 
>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>> before any further discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a verified fact that 2 + 3 = 5 according to the semantics
>>>>>> of arithmetic. Anyone having an opinion that contradicts this is 
>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, but that was not the first thing mentioned in the initial 
>>>>> message.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> int P(ptr2 x)
>>>> {
>>>>   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>   return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>> by H cannot possibly return.
>>>>
>>>> The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
>>>> by H1 DOES return.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Verified fact: the emulation is incorrect
>>
>> But which emulation? By H or by H1?
>>
> 
> Both of them are correct.
> Because P never calls H1(P,P) and P does call H(P,P)
> the call from P to H(P,P) returns in the first case
> and cannot possibly return in the second case.
> 

No, H just can't see that it will return to P. You can say the 
Simulation by H didn't get to that point, but that is not a "behavior" 
of the input, but of the decider.