Path: 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 18:05:12 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vvgleo$15i5e$24@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> <vvgkd7$15i5e$23@dont-email.me>
 <vvgkum$18q46$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 00:05:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a565b5a0e22116f8f680253905402a9a";
	logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ERROUE8dT0j6TXYhegh4e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6roHwM+Ij+frapjQTcfLnw/DjPE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvgkum$18q46$3@dont-email.me>

On 5/7/2025 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 4:47 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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:
>>
> 
> What exact sequence of the following machine addresses
> of DD emulated by HHH 

Which it does incorrectly as you have admitted on the record:


On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH