Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too

On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

>

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as
correct.
>

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.

Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*

how *HHH* returns

>

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

>
You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

>

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.
>

>
It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

>
Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

>
For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.
>

>
*Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
*Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
*when replying to joes*
>
On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
 >> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
 >>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
 >>>  returns to its caller*>>
 >>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
 >>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this.
 >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
 >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
 >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level
 >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
 >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
 >>    DDD halts        voila
 >> HHH halts
 >
 > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your
 > simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
 > then the outer level H would have aborted its
 > identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right?
 > [It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
 > for the last few months! :) ]
 >
 > So your trace is impossible...
 >
>
>

 It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.
 It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or your memory is indeed very short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.

That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't "understand" /anything/ with an abstract / logical / mathematical content.  He can't understand definitions or their role in proofs, or the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not kidding or being rude or anything like that - it's simply the way his brain works.  *Of course* PO does not "really read what you write".  Surely you must have at least suspected this for a long time?!  [I don't notice any problem with PO's memory.]
For PO it's all just "things he thinks are true", aka his intuitions.  Those will not change as a result of any reasoning presented to him, because, literally, PO does not register any reasoning going on.  It's impossible to fully imagine "what it's like to be PO", just like a seeing person can't /truly/ imagine how say a blind person or schizophrenic perceives the world - but as a starter, imagine you're hearing a foreign language and don't understand the words being used.  OK, you recognise the odd word through repetition, and over time you've formed your own (incomplete and often incorrect) opinions of "what the words are to do with", but that's all.  You convince yourself you understand "what the words actually mean" but that's a delusion!  When people reply to what you say, you don't "understand" what they're really saying.  ok, you recognise some of the keywords, and can tell from the tone of the reply whether they are agreeing or disagreeing with you, but that's about it!  You recognise some of the common objections people bring up, and over time you've developed stock phrases to repeat back to them, but there's no "logic" involved.  You don't think all this is strange, because it's always been this way for you.  You don't even realise it's different for everybody else...
The analogy isn't perfect, because as a foreigner you would still be fully capable of reasoning, and you would realise that you don't understand key points and so on.  Instead of a lack of language understanding, the analogy should use a "lack of reasoning ability" theme or something equally fundamental, but that's not a common situation people can appreciate - practically /everybody/ in our lives that we interact with has an ability to reason correctly, understand definitions, understand what people are saying to them and what their beliefs are etc..  But PO is really not like all those normal people!
If you expect to suddenly convince PO he is wrong, that won't happen.  How to dispell a false intuition without using reasoning?  If you expect to prove that PO is wrong, hey that's easy enough, but not really needed!  Nobody with any understanding of HP problem is taken in by PO's duffer speak.  Eventually most posters just get bored repeating the same explanations to him over and over, and umm stop doing it.  [It can take years to get tothat point...]
Perhaps a case could be made that continually demanding PO "proves" his claims is a form of "cruel and unusual punishment" as everybody here by now must appreciate that's far beyond his intellectual capabilities.  Or as a worst case, perhaps it might be compared with "taunting" a mentally handicapped (or at least mentally ill) person, which is obviously not nice at all.  But PO will not recognise that he is in that position, and the "taunters" only suspect, rather than truly believe, that this is in fact the scenario.  So no harm done perhaps.
I think other posters here must wonder about this from time to time, but the thought makes them uncomfortable - if PO really /can't/ reason like normal people, then what would be the /point/ in constantly arguing [note: arguing, not debating/discussing] all this with him over and over and over?  This brings into question their own behaviour...  Easier perhaps to fall back on lazy thinking and just call him a liar, lazy, willfully ignorant and so on.
Perhaps the kindest approach would just be to let him get on with it?  For PO, I feel he has abandoned his life plan of publishing his claims in a peer reviewed journal.  Instead I think he has settled for maintaining/reinforcing his delusions of geniushood for whatever time remains in his life.
I know some will not like this approach - PO is not a nice person; he is arrogant, self deluded, and insults posters to say nothing of those such as Turing/Godel/Tarski who have spent their lives thinking deeply about things and carefully developing their ideas.  It may seem Wrong that PO could live his life casually insulting such people, and then die without getting any come-uppance; it's just ... not ... fair !!!  :)
I understand that, but suggest that none of that really matters.  People cannot change PO into something that he isn't.  When he dies, his mistakes will be quickly forgotten and the world will just carries on.  No harm done...
Mike.