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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 31. May 2024, 03:58:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3bedb$22f8h$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
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/30/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/30/24 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/30/2024 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/30/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/30/2024 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/30/24 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/30/2024 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-05-30 01:15:21 +0000, olcott said:
>
x <is> a finite string Turing machine description that SPECIFIES behavior. The term: "representing" is inaccurate.
>
No, x is a description of the Turing machine that specifies the behaviour
that H is required to report.
>
That is what I said.
>
Note, the string doesn't DIRECTLY specify behavior, but only indirectly as a description/representation of the Turing Mach
>
>
The string directly SPECIFIES behavior to a UTM or to
any TM based on a UTM.
>
By telling that UTM information about the state-transition table of the machine.
>
Note, the description of the machine doesn't depend on the input given to it, so it needs to fully specify how to recreate the behavior of the machine for ALL inputs (an infinite number of them) in a finite string.
>
>
>
The maning of x is that there is a universal
Turing machine that, when given x and y, simulates what the described
Turing machine does when given y.
>
Yes that is also correct.
>
>
>
>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
When embedded_H is a UTM then it never halts.
>
But it isn't unless H is also a UTM, and then H never returns.
>
You like to keep returning to that deception.
>
>
When embedded_H is a simulating halt decider then its correctly
simulated input never reaches its own simulated final state of
⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ and halts. H itself does halt and correctly rejects its
input as non-halting.
>
Except that isn't what the question is, the question is what the actual behavior of the machine described, or equivalently, the simulation by a REAL UTM (one that never stops till done).
>
When embedded_H is a real UTM then Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never stops and embedded_H is
not a decider.
>
Right, that is YOUR delema. You can't make H / embedded_H a UTM without making it not a decider, thus "Correct Simulation by H" can't be the answer, since H can't do both.
>
>
When embedded_H is based on a real UTM then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated
by embedded_H never reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in
any finite number of steps and after these finite steps embedded_H
halts.
>
Then its simulation isn't "correct" per the definitions that relate simulation to behavior.
>
>
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       }
>
In other words you are insisting that every correct simulation
of DD by HH must simulate the following x86 machine code of DD
*incorrectly or in the incorrect order* because the following
machine code proves that DD correctly simulated by HH cannot
possibly reach its own machine address of 00001c47.
 It is "Incorrect" in that it is incomplete.
 
You already acknowledged that DD correctly simulated by pure simulator
HH never reaches its own simulated final state so you already know that
a complete simulation does not help.
*Try and show how you are not lying*
_DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax         ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx         ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
[00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
[00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
[00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
[00001c47] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]
*I am going to stop here and not respond to anything else*
*that you say until AFTER this one point is fully resolved*
--
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
28 May 24 * D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets360olcott
29 May 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets307Richard Damon
29 May 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets306olcott
29 May 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets305Richard Damon
29 May 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets304olcott
29 May 24 i   +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets26Mikko
29 May 24 i   i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets25olcott
30 May 24 i   i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets24Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets23olcott
30 May 24 i   i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets22Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets21olcott
30 May 24 i   i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets20Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets19olcott
30 May 24 i   i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets18Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets17olcott
30 May 24 i   i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets16Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets15olcott
30 May 24 i   i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets14Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets13olcott
30 May 24 i   i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets12Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets11olcott
30 May 24 i   i               +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets4joes
30 May 24 i   i               i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets3olcott
30 May 24 i   i               i +- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1immibis
31 May 24 i   i               i `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i               +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets5immibis
30 May 24 i   i               i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets4Richard Damon
31 May 24 i   i               i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets3Mikko
31 May 24 i   i               i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets2immibis
31 May 24 i   i               i   `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Mikko
30 May 24 i   i               `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
29 May 24 i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets277Richard Damon
29 May 24 i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets276olcott
29 May 24 i     +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets274Alan Mackenzie
29 May 24 i     i+* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets7olcott
29 May 24 i     ii+* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets5Mike Terry
29 May 24 i     iii+* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets2olcott
30 May 24 i     iiii`- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
29 May 24 i     iii`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets2olcott
30 May 24 i     iii `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     ii`- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
29 May 24 i     i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets266Ben Bacarisse
29 May 24 i     i `* Two dozen people were simply wrong265olcott
29 May 24 i     i  +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong4Alan Mackenzie
29 May 24 i     i  i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong3olcott
29 May 24 i     i  i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong2Python
29 May 24 i     i  i  `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong1olcott
30 May 24 i     i  +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong (including Olcott)233Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise232olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise230Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise229olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise228Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise227olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise226Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise225olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise15Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i+* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     ii`- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise12olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise11Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise10olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise5Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise4olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i `* Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise3Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i  `* Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i   `- Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise4joes
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i    +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i     i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2Mikko
31 May 24 i     i  i i     i     `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- Mike Terry1olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise209Mikko
30 May 24 i     i  i i      `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise208olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise205Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise204olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise195Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise194olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise193Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise192olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise191Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise190olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i     `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise189Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i      `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down188olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i       `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down187Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i        `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down186olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i         `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down185Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i          `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down184olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down182Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down181olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down111Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down110olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down108Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down107olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down105Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down104olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down103Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down102olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down92Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down91olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down13Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down12olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down11Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down74Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1immibis
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down2joes
2 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down9Mikko
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1immibis
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down50Wasell
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down16Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down3joes
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1immibis
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise8Mikko
31 May 24 i     i  i i       `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2Mikko
30 May 24 i     i  i `- Re: H is an incorrect x86 emulator1immibis
30 May 24 i     i  +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong1immibis
1 Jun 24 i     i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong26Mikko
30 May 24 i     `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
30 May 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders38olcott
31 May 24 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets14Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal