Re: key error in all the proofs --- Mike's correction of Joes

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: key error in all the proofs --- Mike's correction of Joes
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 15. Aug 2024, 09:01:13
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <27a1f3ca5697d57b9bc29add378db8bdb42e33da@i2pn2.org>
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
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:08:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
"return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>
Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and
correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of
DDD by HHH)
will reach that return.
>
A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
contradiction in terms.
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of
DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
final halt state.
>
That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and
unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>
A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
complete emulation would never halt.
What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>
Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>
Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete
simulations.
*You corrected Joes most persistent error*
She made sure to ignore this correction.
Would you please point it out again?

But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would clearly
halt.
A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in infinite recursion until
aborted.
Yes, HHH can't simulate itself completely. I guess no simulator can.

Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required to correctly
predict the behavior of their inputs, thus the behavior of non-inputs is
outside of their domain.
The input is just the description of D, which halts if H aborts.
The non-input would be if D called a non-aborting simulator,
because it is not being simulated by one that doesn't abort.
We only care about the recursive construction, not your implementation
of D that does NOT call its own simulator.

*This make the words you say below moot*
You have seen that yourself, e.g. with main() calling DDD(), or
UTM(DDD), or HHH1(DDD).  [All of those simulate DDD to completion and
see DDD return.  What I said earlier was that HHH(DDD) does not
simulate DDD to completion, which I think everyone recognises - it
aborts before DDD() halts.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
2 Aug 24 * Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?395olcott
2 Aug 24 +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?11Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i`* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?10olcott
3 Aug 24 i `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?9Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i  `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?8olcott
3 Aug 24 i   `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?7Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i    `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?6olcott
3 Aug 24 i     `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?5Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i      `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?4olcott
3 Aug 24 i       `* Re: Olcott is too stupid to know that only the DDD correctly simulated by onlly the HHH that doesn't abort cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?3Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i        `* Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated,by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?2olcott
3 Aug 24 i         `- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated,by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?287Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i`* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?286olcott
3 Aug 24 i +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?284Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i i`* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?283olcott
3 Aug 24 i i +- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i i `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?281Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i  `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?280olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   +* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?278Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i`* Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?277olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?276Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?275olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?29Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?28olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?27Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?26olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?25Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i    `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?24olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i     `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?23Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i      `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?22olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i       `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD21Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i        `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD20olcott
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i         `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD19Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 i i   i   i          `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD18olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i           `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD17Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i            `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD16olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i             `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD15Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i              `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD14olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i               `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD13Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD12olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                 `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD11Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD10olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD3Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD2olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   i `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD1Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i i   i   i                   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD6Mikko
5 Aug 24 i i   i   i                    `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD5olcott
7 Aug 24 i i   i   i                     `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD4Mikko
7 Aug 24 i i   i   i                      `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i   i                       +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i   i                       `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Mikko
4 Aug 24 i i   i   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?245Fred. Zwarts
4 Aug 24 i i   i    `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?244olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i     `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?243Richard Damon
4 Aug 24 i i   i      `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?242olcott
4 Aug 24 i i   i       +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
5 Aug 24 i i   i       +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?236Mikko
5 Aug 24 i i   i       i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?235olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?25Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?24olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?23Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?22olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?4wij
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   i +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   i `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1wij
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   +- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i   `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?16Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?14olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i+* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?5Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?4olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii  `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?2olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    ii   `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?8Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?7olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  +* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?5Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  i+* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?3olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  ii`* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?2Mike Terry
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  ii `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1olcott
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  i`- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1olcott
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    i  `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
6 Aug 24 i i   i       i i    `- Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?209Mikko
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i  `* HHH computes the mapping from its input finite sting to the actual behavior specified by this finite string208olcott
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it206joes
7 Aug 24 i i   i       i   i+* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it204olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii`* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it203Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii `* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state202olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii  `* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state201Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- HHH never reaches its halt state so never decides, or it decides wrong.1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state1Richard Damon
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state186olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   +* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   ii   `* Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state2olcott
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   i`- Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it1Mikko
8 Aug 24 i i   i       i   `- Re: HHH computes the mapping from its input finite sting to the actual behavior specified by this finite string (Which is the results of running the input)1Richard Damon
7 Aug 24 i i   i       `* Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?4Keith Thompson
4 Aug 24 i i   `- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Fred. Zwarts
3 Aug 24 i `- Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?1Richard Damon
3 Aug 24 `* Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?96Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal