Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 28. Apr 2024, 00:56:31
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v0jvqv$kb0i$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/27/2024 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/27/24 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/27/2024 5:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/27/24 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/27/2024 4:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/27/24 5:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 4/27/2024 4:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 4/27/24 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:
Simulating termination analyzer H determines whether or not
D(D) simulated by H can possibly reach its final state at its
own line 06 and halt whether or not H aborts its simulation.
>
We can resolve exactly what I mean by this as an aspect of
staying on this one point. We cannot move on to the slightest
trace of any nuance of any other point until AFTER we have
100% complete mutual agreement on this point.
>
(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.
>
When we have 100% perfect mutual agreement on that point
then we can move on to the next aspect of the point of the
paragraph.
>
>
The problem is you don't seem to have a proper definition for a "program", as the input seems to change behavior as you analyize different options for what "different" H's might do.
>
It seems that neither your D or your H actual meet the normal definition of what a "Program" is.
>
>
I never even use the word "program"
*H and D are 100% completely specified right here*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
>
>
So, what is the defined "class" of the input to a Termination Analyzer.
>
>
I am only talking about H and D. You always "read things in"
to what I say that I never said.
>
So, what are "H" and "D", are they "Programs" per the standard definitions, or something else that you are stipulating?
>
>
They are 100% completely defined in the complete source-code
that I just linked above.
 So, if H is "defined" by its source code, then it can only do one thing, and thus your criteria of talking about "whether it aborts its simulation or not" is a MEANINGLESS Statement.
 
It <is> the mandatory prerequisite to proceeding to additional steps.
The end of these steps will show how it PRECISELY applies to the Linz
proof.
You cannot truthfully say that I have not defined H and D sufficiently
when I provide the full source code to their fully operational system.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Apr 24 * Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2277olcott
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2220Richard Damon
18 Apr 24 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2219olcott
19 Apr 24 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2218Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2217olcott
19 Apr 24 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2216Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V227olcott
19 Apr 24 i    i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V25Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V24olcott
19 Apr 24 i    ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V23Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i    i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--21olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--19olcott
21 Apr 24 i    i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
22 Apr 24 i    i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--16Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i   +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
23 Apr 24 i    i   i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Richard Damon
23 Apr 24 i    i   i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i   i  `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
23 Apr 24 i    i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--11olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i     +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i     i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i     i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i     i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i     i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i     i     `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Ross Finlayson
27 Apr 24 i    i     `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1olcott
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--186olcott
20 Apr 24 i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
20 Apr 24 i     i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--182olcott
20 Apr 24 i      +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i      i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
21 Apr 24 i      i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--178olcott
22 Apr 24 i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--177olcott
24 Apr 24 i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--176olcott
25 Apr 24 i         +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--171Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--170olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--10Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--9olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--8Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--7olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--6Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i         i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i         i i    `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Ross Finlayson
25 Apr 24 i         i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--159olcott
26 Apr 24 i         i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i         i  +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--139olcott
26 Apr 24 i         i  i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--138Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i         i  i `* D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does137olcott
26 Apr 24 i         i  i  +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does1Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i  `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does135olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i   `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does134Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i    `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does133olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i     `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does132Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i      `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does131olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i       `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does130Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i        +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does1olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i        +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does1olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i        `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3127olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i         `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3126Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i          `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3125olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i           `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3124Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i            `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3123olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             +* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V319Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i`* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V318olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V317Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i  `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V316olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i   `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V315Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i    `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V314olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i     `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V313Richard Damon
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i      `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V312olcott
27 Apr 24 i         i  i             i       `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V311Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i        `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V310olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i         `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V39Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i          `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V38olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i           `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V37Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i            `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V36olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i             `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V35Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i              `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V34olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i               `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V33Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i                `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V32olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             i                 `- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V31Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  i             `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3103olcott
28 Apr 24 i         i  i              +- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V31Richard Damon
29 Apr 24 i         i  i              `* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3101olcott
29 Apr 24 i         i  i               +* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V399Mikko
29 Apr 24 i         i  i               i`* Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V398olcott
30 Apr 24 i         i  i               `- Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V31Richard Damon
28 Apr 24 i         i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--18olcott
25 Apr 24 i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--4olcott
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V254olcott
18 Apr 24 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal