Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : sci.logic comp.theory
Date : 30. Apr 2024, 01:19:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v0p9tm$2ki5r$3@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 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 4/29/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
On 4/29/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-28 13:13:48 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 4/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:
>
When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.
>
Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
insufficient or erronous.
>
Unless they go through every single slight nuance of the details
of my reasoning they won't be able to see that I am correct.
>
Then the expected result is that they will never see that you are correct.
>
Unless I insist that they go through every single slight nuance of the
details of my reasoning THEY ALWAYS LEAP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I AM
WRONG SIMPLY IGNORING WHAT I SAY.
>
Is there any reason to expect a differen result if you do insist?
>
 I now have an airtight proof that I am correct. People ignore all of
the words and leap to the conclusion that I must be wrong.
I refuse to move past the first step of the proof until we have
mutual agreement on this first step. Here is the fist step:
 int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function
 01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
 Simulating termination analyzer H determines whether or not
D(D) simulated by H can possibly reach its final state at its
own line 06 and halt whether or not H aborts its simulation.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
 (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.
 
Except that I have pointed out several ways that some H could get its simulation to that line.
Thus, your "Airtight proof" is about as good as a screen door on a submarine.
You FAIL.
IF you don't remember them, that just shows that you haven't been discussion in good faith.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Apr 24 * Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2323olcott
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2262Richard Damon
18 Apr 24 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2261olcott
19 Apr 24 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2260Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2259olcott
19 Apr 24 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2258Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V256olcott
19 Apr 24 i    i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V25Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V24olcott
19 Apr 24 i    ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V23Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i    i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V250Mikko
20 Apr 24 i    i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--49olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--47Mikko
21 Apr 24 i    i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--46olcott
21 Apr 24 i    i    +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i    i    +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
22 Apr 24 i    i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--43Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
22 Apr 24 i    i     i+* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Mikko
22 Apr 24 i    i     ii`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
23 Apr 24 i    i     ii `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     ii  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i     ii   `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Richard Damon
23 Apr 24 i    i     i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i     i  +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
24 Apr 24 i    i     i  `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
23 Apr 24 i    i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--32olcott
24 Apr 24 i    i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--31Mikko
24 Apr 24 i    i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--30olcott
25 Apr 24 i    i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--29Mikko
25 Apr 24 i    i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--28olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--27Mikko
26 Apr 24 i    i           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--26olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i            i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4Ross Finlayson
26 Apr 24 i    i            i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3olcott
26 Apr 24 i    i            i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i    i            i     `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Ross Finlayson
27 Apr 24 i    i            `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--17Mikko
27 Apr 24 i    i             `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--16olcott
28 Apr 24 i    i              `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--15Mikko
28 Apr 24 i    i               `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--14olcott
29 Apr 24 i    i                `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--13Mikko
29 Apr 24 i    i                 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--12olcott
29 Apr 24 i    i                  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--11Mikko
29 Apr 24 i    i                   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--10olcott
30 Apr 24 i    i                    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--9Mikko
30 Apr 24 i    i                     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--8olcott
1 May 24 i    i                      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--7Mikko
1 May 24 i    i                       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--6olcott
2 May 24 i    i                        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--5Mikko
2 May 24 i    i                         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--4olcott
3 May 24 i    i                          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--3Mikko
3 May 24 i    i                           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--2olcott
4 May 24 i    i                            `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson--1Mikko
19 Apr 24 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V22olcott
20 Apr 24 i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V21Richard Damon
19 Apr 24 i    `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--199olcott
20 Apr 24 i     +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
20 Apr 24 i     i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
20 Apr 24 i     `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--195Mikko
20 Apr 24 i      `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--194olcott
20 Apr 24 i       +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--3Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i       i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--2olcott
21 Apr 24 i       i `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1Richard Damon
21 Apr 24 i       `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--190Mikko
21 Apr 24 i        `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--189olcott
22 Apr 24 i         `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--188Mikko
22 Apr 24 i          `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--187olcott
22 Apr 24 i           `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--186Mikko
22 Apr 24 i            +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--1olcott
22 Apr 24 i            `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--184olcott
23 Apr 24 i             `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--183Mikko
23 Apr 24 i              `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--182olcott
24 Apr 24 i               `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof--181Mikko
24 Apr 24 i                `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--180olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--149Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--148olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--10Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i`* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--9olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--8Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--7olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--6Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--2olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    i`- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
25 Apr 24 i                 i i    `- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Ross Finlayson
25 Apr 24 i                 i `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--137Mikko
25 Apr 24 i                 i  `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--136olcott
26 Apr 24 i                 i   +- Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--1Richard Damon
26 Apr 24 i                 i   `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--134Mikko
26 Apr 24 i                 i    +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--26olcott
26 Apr 24 i                 i    `* D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does107olcott
25 Apr 24 i                 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--30Mikko
18 Apr 24 +* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V254olcott
18 Apr 24 `* Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V26olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal