Re: Every D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt

Am Tue, 21 May 2024 21:05:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/21/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 7:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>

No, but it is impossible for a pure function H to correctly simulate
this D built on that H by the definition of Computation Theory AND
provide an answer.

At this point we are only looking at H as a simulator.
We can have this H return the meaningless 56.

It must return the same value as its input would, or else run indefinitely.

"Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must be
per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM, which
means it does not stop.

It is essentially trivial to see that D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own final state at line 06 because
D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

This is much more understandable now that you added a reason. However,
if one of those simulations aborts (because it detects infinite recursion),
all of them must (because they are the same), making the abortion wrong.
This is the whole argument.

Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly
equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes copies of
the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the requirements
of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it requires that ALL COPIES
return the same answer for the same inputs.

These H/D pairs only simulate.

No, they also recognise infinite recursion and abort, thus behaving
differently (namely, terminating).

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

Very constructive.

And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be
analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where
you are going, it is hard to find the path.

The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
will continue to assume this.

If you think we are pretending, why bother?

But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.

I stated it perfectly and the proof of this is that
you did not point to any gaps in my spec.

You seem to favor baseless rhetoric because you know that baseless
rhetoric with ad hominem mixed in is very convincing for gullible fools.
Gullible fools are outside of my target audience.

Nope, your deception seems to be an attempt to go after gullible fools.

THE ONLY REASON THAT I WORK ON THIS IS TO MATHEMATICALLY
FORMALIZE THE NOTION OF TRUTH ITSELF SO THAT THE NAZI
LIARS CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR LIES.

As if they would care.

If you where honest, you could post you whole arguement and let it be
worked on.

WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS THREAD.

 From your past, the reason you need to break the arguement into pieces
is you need to seperate to logic to allow a change of definition between
the sections.

IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE
ENDLESS DEFECTION
 

For instance, you definition here of correct simulation means your
results can not be used to show non-halting.

WE CAN GET TO THIS POINT AFTER WE FINISH THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE ENDLESS DEFECTION

How ironic. You would get further if you didn’t impose this roadblock.

My guess is in a later section, you will pull out the rule that if a
correct simulation doesn't reach a final state, the input is
non-halting, which is just a LIE because you have changed definition mid
proof.
This has been your history.

Quoted for posterity.

--
joes