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 : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 01. Jun 2024, 23:13:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3g2t2$2n53n$20@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 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/1/24 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/1/2024 3:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/1/24 3:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/1/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 01.jun.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott:
On 6/1/2024 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/1/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/1/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/1/24 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/1/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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,
>
*THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
number of steps of correct emulation.
>
>
Why? I don't care about it.
>
As I have said, the implication of your definition of "Correct SImulation" means that this says NOTHING about the halting behavior of DD. (only not halted yet)
>
>
*THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
*or infinite* number of steps of correct emulation.
>
When I say it that way you claim to be confused and what I do
not say it that way you claim what I say is incomplete proof.
>
WHy do I care? I won't spend the effort to even try to refute something that is clearly meaningless.
>
You seem to have a conflict of definitions, as a given DD will only ever be simulated by ONE given HH that only simuates for one number of steps.
>
>
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       }
>
You continue to either fail to understand or seemingly more likely
simply lie about the fact that every DD correctly simulated by any
HH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
Only if the simulation of HH simulated by HH does not reach HH's return, otherwise the simulation of DD would go to line 04.
>
>
*THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS MEANS THAT THE INPUT TO HH(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>
>
If true: The input to HH is both DD and HH called by DD, so both DD and HH do not halt, but keep starting new instances of each other.
However, HH is required to halt, but it doesn't. So, the HH that halts is phantasy.
>
I have fully operational code that proves otherwise.
Any expert in the C programming language knows the
same thing from the C source-code.
>
>
>
And have yo tried it to see what your HH says about HH?
>
After all, just running H isn't good enough by your rules, as you reject the fact that DD(DD) Halts just because it does when main calls it.
>
 *We have been going over this same point for 2.5 years*
 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
Which is supposed to show WHAT?
you have shown main() calling D(D) once to my memory, and that shows that D(D) Halts.
Therefore, if your claim is that H(D,D) is halting because main calling H(P,P) halts, then you need to accept that since when main calls P(P) it will halt, that this means that P(P) *IS* a halting computation.
You are just trying to change the subject.

 It seems to me (and I may be wrong you may be confused)
That we cannot move on to any other point simply because
you are simply too freaking dishonest.
 You use moving on to other points to endlessly avoid any
closure on any point.
 
No, I am returning to your base claims for this step.
You quoting of that paper just proves that you arguement is intended to be in the field of Computability field, and you need to explicitly change meaning when you mean something different, and accept that this removes your ability to use those aspects you lost by the redefinition.
In Computatability Theory, the only type of "Simulation" considered to be "correct" is that of a UTM, which will not stop it simulation until it reaches a final state, so your altered definition has REMOVED from your portfolio of arguement the ability to relate your PARTIAL simulations to non-halting behavior.
failing to deal with that is just an admission that your partial simulations don't mean anything about halting, so we get back to WHO CARES if H's PARTIAL simuliaton never sees the return from the call to H.

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