Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:44:59 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <v9oa7r$1hmvf$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
 <6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org>
 <v9nog5$1fe76$1@dont-email.me>
 <34a22fd138e2e1e41a4dd29cd6c9016064e2343c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9npus$1flup$2@dont-email.me>
 <e9c7ddb8dc4b4b03399d064d634f11297501e49d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o183$1gkn7$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c13788e85c998e11a449b633b6b8464521c1433@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o4bm$1h46a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:44:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="905ef987000159018ac19d993d3552cf";
	logging-data="1629167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EMiIasN1J+aaPyr+bk/Aw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:plUOyoB7iklALmBNOg6og3lnca8=
In-Reply-To: <v9o4bm$1h46a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB, nl
Bytes: 4522

Op 16.aug.2024 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
> On 8/16/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 1:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 11:47 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:07:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:59 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 09:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH can reach the "return"
>>>>>>>>> instruction of DDD it is construed that this instance of DDD never
>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>> But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an 
>>>>>>>> unlimited
>>>>>>>> emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>>>>>>> Not at all. never has.
>>>>>> Yes, because DDD is defined to call its simulator. If you change the
>>>>>> simulator to abort, you also change the simulated HHH. Nobody cares
>>>>>> about HHH aborting a pure simulator.
>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited simulation would
>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>> The HHH that aborts must predict what DDD calling an aborting HHH 
>>>>>> does
>>>>> NOT AT ALL, NEVER HAS.
>>>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>>>> Yes, an unlimited simulation of an aborting HHH. 
>>>
>>> Prediction of behavior of unlimited emulation
>>> means prediction of behavior that never aborts.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but the unlimited emulation of the DDD that calls the HHH that 
>> says non-halting will reach a final state.
>>
> 
> I think that you are just twisting my words again.
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> The unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never stops running.
> 
> 

But the aborting HHH stops running. When this aborting HHH is simulated, 
the simulator must predict the behaviour the unlimited simulation of the 
*aborting* HHH . It is not allowed to change the input (an aborting HHH) 
into an non-aborting HHH. That is cheating. That is exactly what you do 
with the Root variable, which changes the behaviour of the input.