Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <abc@def.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 13:54:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <v8oipl$6kik$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7295d80cad171cd65cc39845362189aa88adca4f@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lr4u$3iali$1@dont-email.me>
 <c949dfc8c7354f19a3a3d31325ee9847be91f333@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lt59$3iali$2@dont-email.me>
 <74c4fe66234c5332f4ec6032bc55cc6c5f038aee@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lv3a$3j30t$1@dont-email.me>
 <9fb36dd006e570bf987f882a8310bc13e8fc04a7@i2pn2.org>
 <v8m331$3ju7r$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ecbe8eddd0f3644c7045e937ccaf6ddc1cdb3a9@i2pn2.org>
 <v8m5a5$3kbok$1@dont-email.me>
 <de8528a486cdc94aec9fc7dc3d0195fdce3b4fbe@i2pn2.org>
 <v8m93b$3l8jv$1@dont-email.me>
 <c50f1d87c5e386a7c388c982a4f7da8c5889e493@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ma68$3lgfl$1@dont-email.me>
 <03571f185bf16590c5e535908467086b1efaffef@i2pn2.org>
 <v8meta$3ma4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <b1e8c0c9b69cc026f777b37bbd49af5d2afddd21@i2pn2.org>
 <v8mqt0$3s736$1@dont-email.me>
 <1c483f9a972618a0db5c00e03b894c3fe6adc1fa@i2pn2.org>
 <v8nsho$1n09$4@dont-email.me>
 <4c252d84a40dcd88a30c7ba88e040c7b7cfcdebd@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:54:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="903796c801119a1f2fd86200a8e93bf1";
	logging-data="217684"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KEHMjXhJ6JdjraTFsWGTa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yGCqMzIRmbpLwkBzWZvnKEa6Lo8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <4c252d84a40dcd88a30c7ba88e040c7b7cfcdebd@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5764

On 8/4/2024 1:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/4/24 8:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/4/2024 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/3/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/3/24 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 5:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/3/24 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 5:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that every one of those emulation is of a 
>>>>>>>>> *DIFFERENT* input, so they don't prove anything together except 
>>>>>>>>> that each one didn't go far enough. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When each HHH correctly emulates 0 to infinity steps of
>>>>>>>> its corresponding DDD and none of them reach the "return"
>>>>>>>> halt state of DDD then even the one that emulated infinite
>>>>>>>> steps of DDD did not emulate enough steps?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just says lying YOU.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You got any source for that other than yourself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is self-evident and you know it. I do have four
>>>>>> people (two with masters in CS) that attest to that.
>>>>>> *It is as simple as I can possibly make it*
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe to your mind filled with false facts, but it isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how you think that you are not swearing your
>>>>>> allegiance to that father of lies?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because, I know I speak the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you not think you are lying?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone that truly understands infinite recursion knows
>>>>>> that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>> its own "return" final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but for every other HHH, which the ones that answer are, it 
>>>>> isn't a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surpisingly (to me) Jeff Barnett set the record straight
>>>>>> on exactly what halting means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, there is one, and only one definition, it is a machine that 
>>>>> reaches its final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, *a machine*, not a (partial) emulation of the machine
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You already know that a complete emulation of a non-ending
>>>> sequence is impossible and you already acknowledged that
>>>> DDD emulated by HHH that never aborts is non-ending.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHy do you say it is impossible, it just takes forever, 
>>
>> A complete emulation is after all of the instructions have been
>> emulated. That never happens with any infinite execution.
>>
>>
> 
> But by never aborting, it never gives up, and thus is completely correct.
> 

The bottom line here is that you are requiring the impossible
thus making you necessarily incorrect.

Far worse than that you seem to be dishonest by never
admitting the truth that DDD correctly emulated by any
HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction.

> Yes, it never "finishes" but you can't finish an infinite task, but 
> since all countable infinities are the same, it "reaches" "completion" 
> at the same point the input does.
> 
> Now, it can't ever give an answer after completing, since that 
> completion is at infinity, but that isn't the problem for a correct 
> emulator, only for a decider.
> 
> All this shows is that correct (and complete) emulation can not be the 
> method used to halt decide.

Yet again being dishonest by requiring a complete simulation
of an infinite computation.

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