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 20:48:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <vvh2hr$1b939$2@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>
 <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me> <vvh1ev$1bt2l$1@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 03:48:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f36da193996cadd52a214445b52881fc";
	logging-data="1418345"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196yHx5iN1Gg2yz+tUSUhKE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/9vIX7lcULvyPj/l2YEth9KMhQo=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vvh1ev$1bt2l$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-4, 5/7/2025), Outbound message

On 5/7/2025 8:30 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 
> 
> Category error.  There is only one algorithm HHH and one algorithm DDD.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Changing the input is not allowed.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Changing the input is not allowed.
> 
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> False.  See below.
> 
>>
>>> Algorithm UTM *does* simulate algorithm DDD to the end.

DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
x86 language has an easily provably different sequence
of steps than directly executed DDD() according to the
rules of the x86 machine language.


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