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

On 6/1/24 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:

>
*I will not discuss any other points with you until after you either*
(a) Acknowledge that DD correctly simulated by HH and ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
     simulated by embedded_H remain stuck in recursive simulation for
     1 to ∞ of correct simulation or
>
(b) Correctly prove otherwise.

>
And until you answer the question of what that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES.
>

>
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       }
>
Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of HH/DD
pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own simulated
line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by HH.
>
In this case HH is either a pure simulator that never halts or
HH is a pure function that stops simulating after some finite number
of simulated lines. The line count is stored in a local variable.
The pure function HH always returns the meaningless value of 56
after it stops simulating.
>

>
So, still no answer, to teh question.

 You can pretend that you don't understand something that you do indeed
understand into perpetuity.
 The key measure of dishonestly would be that you continue to say
that you don't understand yet never ever point out exactly what you
don't understand and why you don't understand it.
 

I giuess that Mean YOU don't even know what you are asking, though it seems that now you are admitting that your HH doesn't actually ANSWER the question, so it isn't ACTUALL a decider for any function except the "56" mapping.
>
I will repeat the question and until you answer the question of what that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES.
>
DO you mean the simulation of the TEMPLATE DD,

 *Of course I don't mean that nonsense. I mean exactly what I specified*
 

which means that we CAN'T simulate the call HH as we have no code past point to simulate, and thus your claim is just a LIE.
>
Or, do you mean a given instance of HH simulating a given instance of DD, at which point we never have the 1 to infinte number of simulatons of THAT INPUT, so your claim is just a LIE.
>

 Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
 *Its not that hard when one refrains from dishonesty*
We can't even say that you forgot these details from one reply
to the next because the details are still in this same post.
 

And every one gives a meaningless answer, as when you shift to the logic of 1 to infinte steps of simulation of "DD", to try make sense of this, as each element (which are different, and thus have different simulations) was only simulated for one amount of steps (not the 1 to infinite claims) and thus we can't actually conclude anything from any of them except that HH didn't simulate long enough to find the answer.
It seems you are admitting that there is no one input that has been simulated from 1 to and infinite number of steps, only that you have simulated an infinte set of inputs, each only once, and either simulated it partially so inconclusively or your decider never answered, so you have nothing to base your claim on.