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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 02. Jun 2024, 20:02:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v3ic3n$3f51j$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
Op 02.jun.2024 om 16:37 schreef olcott:
On 6/2/2024 3:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 22:11 schreef olcott:
On 6/1/2024 2:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 20:44 schreef olcott:
On 6/1/2024 1:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott:
On 6/1/2024 11:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 18:13 schreef olcott:
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.
>
>
The simulated D never reaches past line 03, because the simulated HH never halts in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of HH by HH.
I have told you that so many times.
HH is required to halt, thus HH does not match the requirement.
>
>
HH correctly reports that because DD calls HH(DD,DD) in
recursive simulation that DD never halts.
>
HHH(HH,DD,DD) would report that HH halts.
>
>
Maybe. And H1 (DD,DD) would report that DD halts.
>
In the recursive simulation by HH, neither the simulation of DD, nor the simulation of HH halts. If one of them would halt, the other one would halt as well.
>
So HH 'correctly' reports that both DD and HH do not halt, because they both keep starting an instance of each other.
>
>
I will not respond to any of your replies while you continue to play
head games.
>
*Changing the subject away from this is construed as a head game*
>
Bad excuse. I am not changing the subject. I show that the requirements of HH in the subject are contradictory.
>
DD correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach
past its own line 03 in any finite number of steps of correct
simulation.
>
Only, because the simulation of HH did not halt.
>
>
In case you didn't know pure functions must halt because they must
return a value.
>
>
I know that HH is required to halt, but your own words implies that it doesn't. So apparently your HH does not match its requirements.
>
Correct me if I am wrong and show the trace of the simulated HH that reaches its final state and the next 10 instructions.
>
>
Pages 4-5 of
*The 2021-09-26 version of my first paper on simulating halt deciders*
*Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
I looked at it, but I could not find where the ret instruction of the simulated H simulated by itself was printed. Could you please tell the page number? I want to know how the simulation proceeds after this return.
I only see the ret instruction simulated by another H. I hope it is not an attempt to change the subject.
 P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction.
All of the instructions of H are screened out otherwise the execution
trace of P would be mixed into with hundreds of other pages of P.
So, we agree that there is no proof that H correctly simulated by itself reaches its ret instruction.
So, I think we should also agree on the fact that HH above, when 'correctly' simulated by itself cannot possibly reach its own final state, because HH demonstrates a repeating state.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
28 May 24 * D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets253olcott
29 May 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets214Richard Damon
29 May 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets213olcott
29 May 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets212Richard Damon
29 May 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets211olcott
29 May 24 i   +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets194Richard Damon
29 May 24 i   i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets193olcott
29 May 24 i   i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets191Alan Mackenzie
29 May 24 i   i i+- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1olcott
29 May 24 i   i i`* Two dozen people were simply wrong189olcott
29 May 24 i   i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong3Alan Mackenzie
29 May 24 i   i i i+- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong1olcott
29 May 24 i   i i i`- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong1olcott
30 May 24 i   i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong (including Olcott)178Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise177olcott
30 May 24 i   i i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise176Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i i i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise175olcott
30 May 24 i   i i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise174Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i i i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise173olcott
30 May 24 i   i i i     `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise172Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i i i      `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise171olcott
30 May 24 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 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 otherwise8olcott
30 May 24 i   i i i       i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise7Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i i i       i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise6olcott
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    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise4olcott
30 May 24 i   i i i       i     `* Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise3Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i i i       i      `* Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2olcott
31 May 24 i   i i i       i       `- Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1Richard Damon
31 May 24 i   i i i       `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise159olcott
31 May 24 i   i i i        +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise157Richard Damon
31 May 24 i   i i i        i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise156olcott
31 May 24 i   i i i        i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise155Richard Damon
31 May 24 i   i i i        i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise154olcott
31 May 24 i   i i i        i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise153Richard Damon
31 May 24 i   i i i        i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise152olcott
31 May 24 i   i i i        i     `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise151Richard Damon
31 May 24 i   i i i        i      `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down150olcott
31 May 24 i   i i i        i       `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down149Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i        `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down148olcott
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i         `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down147Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i          `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down146olcott
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down144Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down143olcott
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down104Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down103olcott
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down101Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down100olcott
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down98Richard 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 down97olcott
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down96Richard 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 down95olcott
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down94Richard 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 down93olcott
1 Jun 24 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`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down10olcott
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 down9Fred. Zwarts
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 down8olcott
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 down7Fred. Zwarts
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 down6olcott
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 down5Fred. Zwarts
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 down4olcott
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 down3Fred. Zwarts
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 down2olcott
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 down1Richard 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 down78Richard 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 down77olcott
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 down76Richard 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 down75olcott
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 down73Richard 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 down72olcott
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 down71Richard 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 down70olcott
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 down8Richard Damon
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 down7olcott
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 down6Richard Damon
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 down5olcott
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 down1immibis
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 down3Richard Damon
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 down2olcott
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 down1Richard 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 down61Fred. 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 down60olcott
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 down50Richard Damon
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 down49olcott
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 down48Richard Damon
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 down47olcott
2 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 down45Richard Damon
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down44olcott
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down43Richard Damon
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down42olcott
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1wij
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1wij
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down37Richard Damon
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down36olcott
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down35Richard Damon
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down34olcott
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   i   +* Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down32Richard Damon
3 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   i   `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1Mikko
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1wij
2 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i i i i     i   i     i   i   `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1Fred. Zwarts
2 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 down1Fred. Zwarts
2 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 down9Fred. Zwarts
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 down1immibis
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 i     `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down2joes
1 Jun 24 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 `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down26Wasell
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down12Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i   i i i        i           `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1immibis
4 Jun 24 i   i i i        `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1olcott
30 May 24 i   i i +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong1immibis
1 Jun 24 i   i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years6olcott
30 May 24 i   i `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets16olcott
30 May 24 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders38olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal