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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 01. Jun 2024, 04:40:05
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3e1m6$2jmc2$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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/31/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 8:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
machine address 00001c47.
>
Why should I, since that isn't what I was saying.
>
>
*To me that looks like you know that*
*you have been busted in a lie and are backing down*
>
no, YOU are LYING RIGHT HERE AND NOW.
>
Prove that I said that the simulation by HH made it there, or admit to being a DAMNED LIAR.
>
What I have been saying is the the DIRECT EXDCUTION of DD, and the CORRECT (and complete) simulation of the input to HH by an actual UTM will get there.
>
>
That has always been the dishonest dodge strawman deception
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal regarding
the behavior of DD correctly simulated by pure function HH.
>
But it is your talking about the "correctly simulated by HH" that is the dishonest dodge,
>
Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
machine address 00001c47.
>
Never said it could. But haven't looked hard enough to be willing to say it can't, but then, who cares, it doesn't say a thing about the real halting problem, since H's simulation isn't "correct" by a definition that relates simulation to non-halting behavior,
>
>
"...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
Linz(1990:234)
>
Right, and that is talking about runnig the Turing Machine, not simulating a representation of it.
>
>
DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own simulated
final state. This is conclusively proven beyond all possible doubt
by the x86 machine code of DD.
>
Depends on the specification of HH, as has beeen shown.
>
>
You can lie about this and try to get away with changing the subject.
What you cannot do is show that it is not true.
>
But I don't try to claim one side of the other, as it isn't relevent.
>
>
*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*
>
But if it isn't relevent, why are we looking at it.
>
It seems you just WANT to waste you time trying to convince people about something they don't care about.
>
>
*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*
>
*Showing that it is relevant is a whole other different subject that*
*we can get to as soon as you quit your deception on this subject*
>
>
*If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
*final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
Nope, Where did that definition say ANYTHING about one machine simulationg another.
>
>
Trying to get away with saying that you don't "believe in" UTMs
can't possibly fool anyone that knows what UTMs are.
>
>
But I DO beleive in UTMs, and know exact what they do.
>
Your embedded_H can NOT actually be a UTM, or neither H nor embedded_H are deciders.
>
PERIOD,.
>
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 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩. In this
case embedded_H fails to be a decider, however it also proves:
>
And then, while THAT H^ is non-halting, H isn't a decider.
>
>
>
>
that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ for any embedded_H based on a UTM
that only simulates some finite sequence of steps.
>
But that only apply *if* embedded_H (and thus H) *IS* a UTM, if it aborts its simuliation, then its
>
>
"...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
Linz(1990:234)
>
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>
And and embedded_H that actually correct simulates the input, by Computaiton Theory definitions is the UTM that, by definition, doesn't abort its simulation.
>
>
*The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
*The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
*The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
>
Only if embedded_H and H are ACTUALLY UTMs,
>
*AS LONG AS 1 to ∞ steps of*
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach their
own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
THEN *The input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H SPECIFIES non-halting behavior*
 And each of those is of a DIFFERENT input,
Every element of the infinite set of embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ has this same
property
1 to ∞ steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly reach their own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
How the Hell did you think you could keep getting away with
that ridiculous shell game? No one here is that much of a rube!
--
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