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 21:59:33 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <vvh365$1bt2l$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>
 <vvh2hr$1b939$2@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 03:59:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a565b5a0e22116f8f680253905402a9a";
	logging-data="1438805"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yW4pAViFQJVXpHLExS9Kc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vTE4K+CksVk2fJZG1aXzO00skk0=
In-Reply-To: <vvh2hr$1b939$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6417

On 5/7/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 

Doesn't happen, 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