Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down

On 6/2/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/2/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/2/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/2/2024 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Show me where I said anything in the above spec about an aborted simulation.

>
So, why did HH stop simulating after some n steps?
>
Did it reach a final state in the simulation? if not, it ABORTED its simulation.
>

>
When every possible which way DD correctly simulated by HH never reaches
past its own simulated line 03 then

>
And a simulation either goes until it reaches a final state of the machine it is simulating, or it aborted its simulation.
>

>
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       }
>
When every DD correctly simulated by any HH cannot possibly reach
past its own simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation
of DD by HH then we have exhaustively examined every possible HH/DD
pair and each element has of this infinite set has the same property.

>
So?
>
It doesn't matter how many aborted simulaiton you do of a given input (and each HH simulated a DIFFERENT input since it simulated the INSTANCE of the template with a different HH)
>

>
In other words one cannot prove that every five pound rock weighs
more than every three pound rock, one must weigh them one-at-a-time?

>
Nope. But you need to show that each rock IS a five pound rock.
>
IF you weigh one rock, and find it is 5 pounds, doesn't mean that anothoer rock  rock that looks about the same is also 5 pouds,
>
You do seem to like you Herring in Red sauce, don't you.
>
The comparison here is that you have only "weighed" a very few of your DDs, only those built on an HH that NEVER aborts have been determined to not halt. The others are just haven't-yet-halted-after-n-steps, but we actually DO know that they WILL Halt after more.
>

>

The ONLY simulation that actually showed that ITS input was no-halting was the HH that never aborted, and it didn't answer.
>
Every other HH has a DIFFERENT INPUT and would be LYING to say it had that other input.
>

>
In other words (because each rock is different) one cannot prove that every five pound rock weighs more than every three pound rock, one must weigh them one-at-a-time?

Nope, unless of course you still need to weight them to show they ARE 5 pound rocks.
>

>
Every HH/DD pair of the infinite of every possible HH/DD pair
DD correctly simulated by HH NEVER HALTS.

>
That isn't even your original claim you were asking about.
>
Your claim wasn't about "Halting" because that is easily disproven, but that there correct PARTIAL simulation done by H never reaches the statement after the call.
>
You are just showing your true colors, that you just don't understand what you are talkinag about and get your lies confused.
>

>

>
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*

>
Nope. Aborted simulation don't prove anything.
>

>
When for each element of the infinite set of every HH/DD pair DD
correctly simulated by HH cannot get past its own simulated line 03
then we know that none of the DD inputs to each HH(DD,DD) ever halts.

>
>
Nope. Try to actually PROVE that.
>

>
Semantic tautologies are self-evident truth that prove themselves.
It is a fact that every five pound rock weights more than any
three pound rock. No need to weigh any rocks.

>
Right, so you don't need to weigh a five pound rock to know it is five bpounds.
>

>
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       }
>
Likewise we correctly deduce that for every HH/DD pair of the
infinite set of all HH/DD pairs that match the above template
every DD correctly simulated by HH never reaches past its own
simulated line 03, thus never halts.

>

 When for every freaking HH/DD pair that matches the above template
DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly ever reaches past its
own simulated line 03 then
 we know with complete logical certainty that not a damn one of
these DD instance halts. halts, NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.

Nope, and you are just proving you are totally out of touch with reality.
EVERY DD built on an HH that returns 0 for HH(DD,DD) will Halt.
Remember, HALTING is a property of the ACTUAL MACHINE, and not necessarily shown by partial simulations.
So, since it has been shown (and you even agreed at one point) that DD(DD) will Halt (your agreement was for D(D) ), that IS the fact, and you currect denial is just proof of your total ignorance of what you are talking about.

 NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.
NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.
NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.
NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.

Since they do, we know who is the DAMN LIAR, headed for the lake of FIRE.

 How many morons do you think will believe your damn nonsense?
How many morons do you think will believe your damn nonsense?
How many morons do you think will believe your damn nonsense?

Not you it seems, and that seems to be one of the few morons here.
Smart people understand the truth.
You seem to be confusing the "fantasy" world of your partial simulaition for the REALITY of direct execution, which is revealed by ACTUAL COMPLETE AND CORRECT SIMULATION.

 We do not have to freaking weigh every damn rock to know that
every rock weighing more than five pounds weighs more than
three pounds likewise for all HH/DD pairs.
 

Right, you only need to weight them to show that the rock IS more than 5 pounds.
And we don't need to fully simulate by your method any DD that is based on an HH(DD,DD) that returns 0, as by simple inspection we can see that it will halt.
Please explain how any DD(DD) can NOT halt if we know that HH(DD,DD) will always return 0.