Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down

On 6/1/24 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jun.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott:

On 6/1/2024 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:

>
*I will not discuss any other points with you until after you either*
(a) Acknowledge that DD correctly simulated by HH and ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
     simulated by embedded_H remain stuck in recursive simulation for
     1 to ∞ of correct simulation or
>
(b) Correctly prove otherwise.

>
And until you answer the question of what that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES.
>

>
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         HH(DD,DD);
12         return 0;
13       }
>
Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of HH/DD
pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own simulated
line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by HH.
>
In this case HH is either a pure simulator that never halts or
HH is a pure function that stops simulating after some finite number
of simulated lines. The line count is stored in a local variable.
The pure function HH always returns the meaningless value of 56
after it stops simulating.
>

>
So, still no answer, to teh question.

>
You can pretend that you don't understand something that you do indeed
understand into perpetuity.
>
The key measure of dishonestly would be that you continue to say
that you don't understand yet never ever point out exactly what you
don't understand and why you don't understand it.
>

I giuess that Mean YOU don't even know what you are asking, though it seems that now you are admitting that your HH doesn't actually ANSWER the question, so it isn't ACTUALL a decider for any function except the "56" mapping.
>
I will repeat the question and until you answer the question of what that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES.
>
DO you mean the simulation of the TEMPLATE DD,

>
*Of course I don't mean that nonsense. I mean exactly what I specified*
>

which means that we CAN'T simulate the call HH as we have no code past point to simulate, and thus your claim is just a LIE.
>
Or, do you mean a given instance of HH simulating a given instance of DD, at which point we never have the 1 to infinte number of simulatons of THAT INPUT, so your claim is just a LIE.
>

>
Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>
*Its not that hard when one refrains from dishonesty*
We can't even say that you forgot these details from one reply
to the next because the details are still in this same post.
>

>
And every one gives a meaningless answer,

>
*THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
number of steps of correct emulation.
>

>
Why? I don't care about it.
>
As I have said, the implication of your definition of "Correct SImulation" means that this says NOTHING about the halting behavior of DD. (only not halted yet)
>

>
*THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
*or infinite* number of steps of correct emulation.
>
When I say it that way you claim to be confused and what I do
not say it that way you claim what I say is incomplete proof.

>
WHy do I care? I won't spend the effort to even try to refute something that is clearly meaningless.
>
You seem to have a conflict of definitions, as a given DD will only ever be simulated by ONE given HH that only simuates for one number of steps.
>

>
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         HH(DD,DD);
12         return 0;
13       }
>
You continue to either fail to understand or seemingly more likely
simply lie about the fact that every DD correctly simulated by any
HH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

>
Only if the simulation of HH simulated by HH does not reach HH's return, otherwise the simulation of DD would go to line 04.
>

>
*THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>

>
If true: The input to HH is both DD and HH called by DD, so both DD and HH do not halt, but keep starting new instances of each other.
However, HH is required to halt, but it doesn't. So, the HH that halts is phantasy.

>
I have fully operational code that proves otherwise.
Any expert in the C programming language knows the
same thing from the C source-code.
>

>
>
And have yo tried it to see what your HH says about HH?
>
After all, just running H isn't good enough by your rules, as you reject the fact that DD(DD) Halts just because it does when main calls it.
>

 *We have been going over this same point for 2.5 years*
 Pages 4-5 of
*The 2021-09-26 version of my first paper on simulating halt deciders*
*Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

Which is supposed to show WHAT?
you have shown main() calling D(D) once to my memory, and that shows that D(D) Halts.
Therefore, if your claim is that H(D,D) is halting because main calling H(P,P) halts, then you need to accept that since when main calls P(P) it will halt, that this means that P(P) *IS* a halting computation.
You are just trying to change the subject.

 It seems to me (and I may be wrong you may be confused)
That we cannot move on to any other point simply because
you are simply too freaking dishonest.
 You use moving on to other points to endlessly avoid any
closure on any point.
 

No, I am returning to your base claims for this step.
You quoting of that paper just proves that you arguement is intended to be in the field of Computability field, and you need to explicitly change meaning when you mean something different, and accept that this removes your ability to use those aspects you lost by the redefinition.
In Computatability Theory, the only type of "Simulation" considered to be "correct" is that of a UTM, which will not stop it simulation until it reaches a final state, so your altered definition has REMOVED from your portfolio of arguement the ability to relate your PARTIAL simulations to non-halting behavior.
failing to deal with that is just an admission that your partial simulations don't mean anything about halting, so we get back to WHO CARES if H's PARTIAL simuliaton never sees the return from the call to H.