Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH

Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 17:58:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott:

>

It cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one
cycle too early, showing that the emulation is incorrect.
If that is over your head, try to learn how x86
instructions work.

>

A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as
the program at the input.
>

Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics of
the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do
that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that
what I said is true.
>

Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct
Emulation.

It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay attention that
this definition is contradicted by verified facts.

>
WHAT "Verified facts".
THe fact that DDD will halt since your HHH(DDD) retuns?

No, DDD does halt if HHH is a decider and HHH(DDD) returns.
>
>

That is the same nutty bullshit as Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
theorem. If there are no truth preserving operations in PA to
either G or ~G then G has no truthmaker in PA making G not a
truth-bearer in PA.

Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it.
Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar.

You need to show your proof, that you can form a "Diagonalization"
proof that Godel's sentence is not true.

*This source says nothing like what you claim*
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom
>

Because they aren't using that terminology. That doesn't make the
statement not true.
 
Note, they do talk about how the sentence, if it were false, could be
shown false by just showing the number that satisfies it. So, one way
to demonstrate that it IS true, is to just test EVERY number (all
countable infinite number of them) and show that none make the counter
example.
 
Most papers don't talk like that as we can't actually do it that way,
but it is the simple explanation that should be able to sink into your
head. If you want to show how that DOESN'T provide an infinite chain of
steps to the truth of the statement, go ahead and try.
 
Your problem is you like to quote from things that you don't
understand.

 
You have no source that validates this On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard
Damon wrote:
 > But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G,
 > it is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they don't
 > constitute a proof.
 
Every source says that G is proved outside of PA and none says there are
any infinite sequence of steps in PA that derive G.

IIRC you can enumerate the sentences that say „I don’t prove G”, of which
there are infinitely many. Together they say there is no proof.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.