Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for
 unknowns and unknowable
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 20:20:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <vvh0t2$1b939$1@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> <vvgleo$15i5e$24@dont-email.me>
 <vvgov4$1a47o$2@dont-email.me> <vvgp8b$15i5e$25@dont-email.me>
 <vvgpk6$1a47o$4@dont-email.me> <vvgpo7$15i5e$26@dont-email.me>
 <vvgq6o$1acph$1@dont-email.me> <vvgqgl$15i5e$27@dont-email.me>
 <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me> <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me> <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 03:20:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f36da193996cadd52a214445b52881fc";
	logging-data="1418345"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/N4R4jsXpDGyrlX9s8fWcx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1+QL2QNPXJ0eftoDoBocR+T9wTE=
In-Reply-To: <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-4, 5/7/2025), Outbound message

On 5/7/2025 7:44 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 8:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2025 7:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2025 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2025 6:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2025 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When N instructions of DD are emulated by HHH
>>>>>> according to the rules of the x86 language then
>>>>>
>>>>> The subject was "DD emulated by HHH", not "N instructions of DD 
>>>>> emulated by HHH".
>>>>>
>>>>> Changing the subject is the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you and Richard construe anything less than an
>>>> infinite number of steps of DD emulated by HHH
>>>> (according to the rules of the x86 language)
>>>> as an incorrect emulation IS MORONICALLY STUPID.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The fixed immutable code of HHH simulates a fixed number X of 
>>> instructions of DD, the last of which was simulated incorrectly.  Any 
>>> number other than X is not what HHH simulates and is therefore 
>>> irrelevant to HHH.
>>>
>>> UTM simulates X+Y instruction of DD correctly and reaches a final state.
>>>
>>
>> I will make it easier to understand.
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> Can DDD simulated by HHH reach its own "return" instruction?
>>
> 
> Category error. There is no "can" as algorithm HHH is fixed and 
> immutable, as is algorithm DDD.
> 

Does there exist an HHH such that DDD emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the C programming language
where the DDD element of the infinite set of HHH/DDD
pairs reaches its own "return" instruction?

It is like I am asking you is there a positive
number that is less than zero? You don't have
to check the positive numbers one-at-a-time.

We can know with complete certainty that no DDD
simulated by any HHH can possibly reach its own
"return" instruction.

> Algorithm HHH *does not* simulate algorithm DDD to the end but instead 
> aborts in violation of the x86 language.
> 

there is no end to reach.

> Algorithm UTM *does* simulate algorithm DDD to the end.
> 
> 


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