Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for
 unknowns and unknowable
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 17:47:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vvgkd7$15i5e$23@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <b47c9e70d415c1e5e469aaab846f0bd05e4bcc51@i2pn2.org>
 <vvall0$o6v5$1@dont-email.me> <vvc33h$25atc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvcgja$1voc$1@news.muc.de> <vvd6pf$34l9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvdads$13pc$1@news.muc.de> <vvdcld$3arjo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvg6r9$15e69$1@dont-email.me> <vvg7uu$158tp$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvg8tk$15e69$4@dont-email.me> <vvgai8$158tp$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvgcme$15e69$9@dont-email.me> <vvgjdo$18i6e$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgkao$18q46$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 23:47:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fL1JOysVgkQmz5l3dPQpn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:p8s5HpTQ5faodWpFceh7ttQqiiE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvgkao$18q46$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4221

On 5/7/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 07/05/2025 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2025 1:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 07/05/2025 19:31, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I already know that the contradictory part of the
>>>>> counter-example input has always been unreachable code.
>>>>
>>>> If the code is unreachable, it can't be part of a working program, 
>>>> so simply remove it.
>>>
>>> It is unreachable by the Halting Problem counter-example
>>> input D when correctly simulated by the simulating
>>> termination analyzer H that it has been defined to thwart.
>>
>> If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executed program 
>> reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
>>
> 
> If is was true that it is not a faithful simulation
> then you would be able to show exactly what sequence
> of instructions would be a faithful simulation.


The sequence executed by HHH1, as you are on record as admitting is correct:



On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
 >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
 >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
 >>>> It does not abort.
 >>>
 >>> Last chance:
 >>>
 >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
 >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
 >>
 >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
 > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
 >
 >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
 >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
 >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
 >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
 >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
 > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
 > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
 > on record as admitting.