Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable

On 5/7/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 4:30 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 20:35, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 1:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 07/05/2025 19:31, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

>
I already know that the contradictory part of the
counter-example input has always been unreachable code.

>
If the code is unreachable, it can't be part of a working program, so simply remove it.

>
It is unreachable by the Halting Problem counter-example
input D when correctly simulated by the simulating
termination analyzer H that it has been defined to thwart.

>
If the simulation can't reach code that the directly executed program reaches, then it's not a faithful simulation.
>

 If is was true that it is not a faithful simulation
then you would be able to show exactly what sequence
of instructions would be a faithful simulation.

The sequence executed by HHH1, as you are on record as admitting is correct:
On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
 >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
 >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
 >>>> It does not abort.
 >>>
 >>> Last chance:
 >>>
 >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
 >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
 >>
 >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
 > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
 >
 >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
 >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
 >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
 >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
 >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
 > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
 > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
 > on record as admitting.