Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333681 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 409 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 20:26 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 20:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:42 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:53 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:33 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:32 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:30 +0800
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:41 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:49 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 19:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 18:31 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 22:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 11:07 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Richard tried to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 12:12 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 12:49 -0500
Olcott keeps on lying. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:50 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:11 -0500
Olcott thinks something isn't iteself. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:19 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:43 -0500
Olcott can't tell the difference between a machine and an infinte set of machines Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:59 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 17:28 -0500
Olcott thinks One is Infinity Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0400
Richard seems to be a liar. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0500
Olcott doesn't know the difference between an element an the set Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:21 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No, but Olcott is. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Richard must be educated on what a termination analyzer is olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:49 -0500
Olcott admits to creating defintion out of his *ss Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Is Oclott a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:46 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-14 15:08 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 18:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 19:49 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:52 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-14 19:01 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:10 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:20 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:48 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 21:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 22:05 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:02 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 21:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 08:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:32 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 12:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:12 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:58 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:09 +0300
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:56 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:26 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 06:27 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:04 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 13:40 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:57 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Is Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:48 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-17 07:09 +0000
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:28 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker -- Reply to Ben's long standing objection olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:42 -0500
Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:46 -0500
Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:01 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:23 +0300
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:00 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:11 -0400
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:49 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:37 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:53 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:19 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 23:49 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 02:17 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:37 -0500
Re: Olcott KEEPS LYING about Richard not refuting his statemnt. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:51 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 18:38 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 17:14 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:30 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-19 00:48 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 13:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500
Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 00:43 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 03:25 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-10 07:18 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 23:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 15:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 07:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-10 14:53 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200
Page 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3340s$29def$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334637 |
On 5/27/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2024 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function
>>>>>>> H. This
>>>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to
>>>>>>> endlessly
>>>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different
>>>>>>> notion of
>>>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>>>> instructions
>>>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a
>>>>>> call H means
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is completely defined and you are just ignoring this definition*
>>>>
>>>> So, what instruction does the call H in D go to to be simulated?
>>>>
>>>
>>> DISHONEST HEAD GAMES. WHEN WE APPLY THIS SAME REASONING TO THE
>>> LINZ TEMPLATE YOUR REASONING CALLS THE LINZ TEMPLATE NONSENSE.
>>
>> Nope, because Linz doesn't try to pass a Template to H, but the
>> machine built from the template H^.
>>
>> As I said, if you assume the input is the machine built from the
>> template you get the ability to define the simulation, you just now
>> get every decider got a different input, so you can't just do the
>> logic across them.
>>
>> YOU are the one trying to do dishonest head games
>>
>> (And who has been saying that insults are unprofessional?)
>>
>>>
>>>> As a template, there is no fixed H, so no instruction to look at.
>>>>
>>>>> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H
>>>>> or pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly
>>>>> simulated
>>>>> D ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do some of these instances of H play a game of poker with themselves
>>>>> before or after they simulate D? Yes they do because the H/D pairs
>>>>> are an infinite set.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, how do they correctly simulate something that isn't there?
>>>>
>>>> Either they are simulating an INSTANCE of the template, in which
>>>> case each H is looking at a DIFFERENT instance, and you can't relate
>>>> one result to the other, or they are trying to simulate the
>>>> Template, at which point you have the problem that the code to be
>>>> simulated hasn't been defined, and thus you can't do what you define
>>>> to do.
>>>
>>> I AM REFERRING TO THE EXACT SAME SORT OF INFINITE SET
>>> THAT THE LINZ TEMPLATE IS REFERRING TO AND YOU KNOW IT.
>>
>> Nope, Linz choose A SPECIFIC H out of the set, and gives it a SPECIFIC
>> H^ built from that SPECIFIC H, and then works with that set. There is
>
> When you say "specific machine" you don't mean anything like a
> 100% completely specified sequence of state transitions encoded
> as a single unique finite string.
Mostly.
There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100%
completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
Note, the sequences of states it goes through, will be a function of the
input given to that machine.
No no-trival Turing machine has a unique finite string encoding because
you can always re"name" the non-initial/non-final states generating a
vast array of possible encodings (generally an infinite number of them)
Does that surprise you? It shouldn't
Note, that specific Turing machine H^ needs to be built from the
specific Turing Machine H that it is being built to refute as being correct.
The key is we can show that for ANY machine that might claim to be a
correct halt decider, the proof establishes a formula to construct a
specific input you can give that specific machine to show that it isn't
correct.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Linz claims that out of the infinite possible implementations of
> embedded_H specified by the second ⊢* that none of them get the
> right answer.
Right, and he does it by categorical exhaustive logic.
>
> I would be pretty dumb if Linz took this the way the you are taking it:
> "there exists a specific implementation of embedded_H that gets the
> wrong answer."
>
Nope, I guess you don't understand how to do a categorical proof.
If you take an specific, but arbitrary, member of the set, and show that
it is wrong. Then, since the choice was arbitrary, you can point out
that the exact same proof could be done to any other member of the set,
thus NO member of the set can be right.
The point is that when you are dealing with a specific machine, and the
specific input you are giving that machine, you have at hand a large set
of tools that let you talk about that machine,
If you try to work with all of them at once, it is much harder to get
things right, as you need to keep all the relationships between the
elements in order.
The key point is that most of the Theory provides details about the
behaivior of *A* machine, not sets of machines. After all, when you run
a machine, you run a specific machine and get a specific answer from
that machine, so to handle a set you need to look at each of them
individually anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v347mh$hf5j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334623 |
Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01 int D(ptr p)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>
> Correct Simulation Defined
> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>
> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
> emulating D.
>
> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
> line 06 and halt.
>
We can equally well replace D with H.
When we see that H correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for H correctly
simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state and
halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v34sbj$l6mn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334655 |
On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 return 0;
>> 13 }
>>
>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>
>> Correct Simulation Defined
>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>
>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>> emulating D.
>>
>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>> line 06 and halt.
>>
>
> We can equally well replace D with H.
Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
such attempts out as Trolling.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v362et$2d367$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334660 |
On 5/28/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>
>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>> emulating D.
>>>
>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>
>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>
> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>
> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
> such attempts out as Trolling.
>
Mope, you don't understand how the Socratic method works in this sort of
discussion.
You do NOT qualify as the "Master Teacher" instruction disciples, so you
don't get to use the one-way version.
Maybe you should humble yourself and actually LEARN something by
listening to the questions put to you and try to seek the answers.
Fred is right, by your logic, H proves that H is non-halting, and thus
not a decider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500 |
| Subject | My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME |
| Message-ID | <v3640k$vg63$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334665 |
On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/28/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>
>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>
>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of
>>>> the
>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>> instructions
>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>>> emulating D.
>>>>
>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>
>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>
>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>>
>
> Mope, you don't understand how the Socratic method works in this sort of
> discussion.
>
We are going to completely go over exactly one point at a time
and not diverge from this one point until we have complete
closure. I cannot and will not tolerate any CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT
FAKE REBUTTAL. *The subject line of the post defines this point*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME |
| Message-ID | <v367vu$2d368$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334669 |
On 5/28/24 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/28/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H.
>>>>> This
>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>> of the
>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>> instructions
>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>> itself
>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>> remain
>>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less
>>>>> than
>>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>>
>>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>>
>>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>>>
>>
>> Mope, you don't understand how the Socratic method works in this sort
>> of discussion.
>>
>
> We are going to completely go over exactly one point at a time
> and not diverge from this one point until we have complete
> closure. I cannot and will not tolerate any CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT
> FAKE REBUTTAL. *The subject line of the post defines this point*
>
So, what are you going to do, hold your breath until you are blue in the
face and then throw a tantrum.
The rebutal isn't "Fake", your trying to just deny it IS.
I have put forward questions that you WILL need to answer, and I will
NOT agree to any point if there are unresolved ambiquities i your
definitions and their implications,
As I have said, your refusal to rebut the implications WILL be taken as
an aggrement to them in any reply by me, and thus any claim to the
contrary resets any agreements and you will need to go back to step zero.
Obviously, the problem is that my implications are going directly
opposite some of the things you are going to try to claim latter, based
on a slight shift of the definition, which just shows that you are
planing on LYING.
So, if you want to handle one point at a time, you need to handle ALL
the questions about that point.
Maybe you don't understand how the Socratic method actually worked. The
teacher DID put out questions, but the student WAS able to ask questions
back, and was actually encouraged to do so. The goal was to make the
students think and understand.
The fact that you get stumped by the questions back, just show you
aren't really a teacher, and don't really have anything to show.
You are just misusing the method to try to define away the ability to
reject, which is why your needing to use the method in that way just
shows the utter weakness of your argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v39ja5$1l09d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334660 |
Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>
>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>> emulating D.
>>>
>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>
>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>
> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>
> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
> such attempts out as Trolling.
You do not even understand your own subject. I am just showing that your
H does not halt, according to its own judgement. So, your simulating H
is not in agreement with the requirement that it should halt. If the
simulation of H would halt (as is the requirement), then D would reach
line 04. The only reason D, the parameter duplicator, does not reach
line 04 is that H does not halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v39vjg$1mtd9$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334724 |
On 5/30/2024 5:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>
>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>
>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of
>>>> the
>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>> instructions
>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>>> emulating D.
>>>>
>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>
>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>
>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>
> You do not even understand your own subject. I am just showing that your
> H does not halt, according to its own judgement. So, your simulating H
> is not in agreement with the requirement that it should halt. If the
> simulation of H would halt (as is the requirement), then D would reach
> line 04. The only reason D, the parameter duplicator, does not reach
> line 04 is that H does not halt.
>
This is incorrect. Only the directly executed outermost H must halt.
Everything else is merely data to this directly executed H.
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01 int D(ptr p)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H or
pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated D
ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
Whenever H is a pure function then H always halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3a4ug$1o4q1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334731 |
Op 30.mei.2024 om 15:40 schreef olcott:
> On 5/30/2024 5:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H.
>>>>> This
>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>> of the
>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>> instructions
>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>> itself
>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>> remain
>>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less
>>>>> than
>>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>>
>>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>>
>>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>>
>> You do not even understand your own subject. I am just showing that
>> your H does not halt, according to its own judgement. So, your
>> simulating H is not in agreement with the requirement that it should
>> halt. If the simulation of H would halt (as is the requirement), then
>> D would reach line 04. The only reason D, the parameter duplicator,
>> does not reach line 04 is that H does not halt.
>>
>
> This is incorrect. Only the directly executed outermost H must halt.
> Everything else is merely data to this directly executed H.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01 int D(ptr p)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>
> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H or
> pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated D
> ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>
> Whenever H is a pure function then H always halts.
Directly executed D halts, but olcott claims that the halt decider is
correct when it says that it does not halt, if the simulator is unable
to reach D's final state.
If that is true, it holds for any program, not only for D, but also for
H. So we can repeat the argument for H:
H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of H with either pure function H or
pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated H
ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
So, either H halts, but then the proof (by simulating it in H) that it
does not halt is invalid (and then the similar proof that D halts is
invalid as well), or the direct execution is a proof that H halts (and
then the direct execution of D is also a proof that D halts).
If not true, show how the 'correct simulation' of H reaches the final
state of the simulated H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v347fh$hf5j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334618 |
Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>> can see the whole message now that
>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>> remain
>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never
>>>>> reaches its
>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure function
>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>>
>>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
>>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation thus
>>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and halts. In
>>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>>> decider.
>>
>> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
>> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that uses
>> that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for such a D.
>>
>
> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>
When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
steps is also not enough steps for H to halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v34s4p$l6mn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334654 |
On 5/28/2024 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>>> can see the whole message now that
>>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>>> remain
>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never
>>>>>> reaches its
>>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
>>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure function
>>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>>>
>>>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
>>>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation
>>>> thus
>>>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and
>>>> halts. In
>>>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>>>> decider.
>>>
>>> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
>>> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that
>>> uses that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for such
>>> a D.
>>>
>>
>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>
>
> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
> steps is also not enough steps for H to halt.
>
When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
steps are also not enough steps for D to halt.
This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of D are correctly simulated by
H that D correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
what-so-ever
*CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*
Once we have mutual agreement and complete closure on this we can
move on to STEP TWO that analyzes these exact same issues with the
Linz proof. The H/D pairs were needed so that people cannot cheat
on the meaning of correct simulation.
*Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
*Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
*Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v39jhp$1l09d$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334659 |
Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:10 schreef olcott:
> On 5/28/2024 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>>>> can see the whole message now that
>>>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>>>> remain
>>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never
>>>>>>> reaches its
>>>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
>>>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure
>>>>>> function
>>>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>>>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>>>>
>>>>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
>>>>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation
>>>>> thus
>>>>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and
>>>>> halts. In
>>>>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>>>>> decider.
>>>>
>>>> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
>>>> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that
>>>> uses that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for such
>>>> a D.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>>> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>>
>>
>> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>> steps is also not enough steps for H to halt.
>>
>
> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
> steps are also not enough steps for D to halt.
>
> This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of D are correctly simulated by
> H that D correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
> what-so-ever
> *CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*
>
> Once we have mutual agreement and complete closure on this we can
> move on to STEP TWO that analyzes these exact same issues with the
> Linz proof. The H/D pairs were needed so that people cannot cheat
> on the meaning of correct simulation.
>
> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
>
When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
steps are also not enough steps for H to halt.
This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of H are correctly simulated by
H that H correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
what-so-ever
*CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT H CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*
By this proof, we see that this H contradicts the requirement that it
should halt.
We cannot continue with this before we have agreement about it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v39u6j$1mtd9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334726 |
On 5/30/2024 5:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:10 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/28/2024 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>>>>> can see the whole message now that
>>>>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>>>>> remain
>>>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never
>>>>>>>> reaches its
>>>>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your
>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>>>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>>>>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D
>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive
>>>>>> simulation thus
>>>>>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and
>>>>>> halts. In
>>>>>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
>>>>> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that
>>>>> uses that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for
>>>>> such a D.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>>>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>>>> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>>> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
>>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>>> steps is also not enough steps for H to halt.
>>>
>>
>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>> steps are also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>
>> This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of D are correctly simulated by
>> H that D correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
>> what-so-ever
>> *CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*
>>
>> Once we have mutual agreement and complete closure on this we can
>> move on to STEP TWO that analyzes these exact same issues with the
>> Linz proof. The H/D pairs were needed so that people cannot cheat
>> on the meaning of correct simulation.
>>
>> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
>> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
>> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
>>
>
> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
> steps are also not enough steps for H to halt.
>
> This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of H are correctly simulated by
> H that H correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
> what-so-ever
> *CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT H CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*
>
> By this proof, we see that this H contradicts the requirement that it
> should halt.
> We cannot continue with this before we have agreement about it.
You should put my words in quotes otherwise people will be thinking
that you agree with me word-for-word.
Not at all. When we see that the infinite set of every possible D
simulated by any H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state
and halt this remains true for D correctly simulated by simulating halt
decider H. H halts and correctly simulated D never halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3a43s$1o2j5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334730 |
Op 30.mei.2024 om 15:16 schreef olcott:
> On 5/30/2024 5:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:10 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/28/2024 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>>>>>> can see the whole message now that
>>>>>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H
>>>>>>>>> would remain
>>>>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never
>>>>>>>>> reaches its
>>>>>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your
>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>>>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure
>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>>>>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>>>>>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive
>>>>>>> simulation thus
>>>>>>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and
>>>>>>> halts. In
>>>>>>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
>>>>>> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that
>>>>>> uses that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for
>>>>>> such a D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>>>>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite
>>>>> number
>>>>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite
>>>>> number of
>>>>> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
>>>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>>>> steps is also not enough steps for H to halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>>> steps are also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>>
>>> This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of D are correctly simulated by
>>> H that D correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
>>> what-so-ever
>>> *CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*
>>>
>>> Once we have mutual agreement and complete closure on this we can
>>> move on to STEP TWO that analyzes these exact same issues with the
>>> Linz proof. The H/D pairs were needed so that people cannot cheat
>>> on the meaning of correct simulation.
>>>
>>> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
>>> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
>>> *Dozens of people have consistently insisted on cheating on this*
>>>
>>
>> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number
>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>> steps are also not enough steps for H to halt.
>>
>> This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of H are correctly simulated by
>> H that H correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances
>> what-so-ever
>> *CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT H CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT*
>>
>> By this proof, we see that this H contradicts the requirement that it
>> should halt.
>> We cannot continue with this before we have agreement about it.
>
> You should put my words in quotes otherwise people will be thinking
> that you agree with me word-for-word.
>
> Not at all. When we see that the infinite set of every possible D
> simulated by any H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state
> and halt this remains true for D correctly simulated by simulating halt
> decider H. H halts and correctly simulated D never halts.
>
It is clear for anyone with a little bit of C knowledge, that if H
halts, then D continues with line 04.
So, if the claim is true that the simulation of D does not reach line 04
it means that the simulation of H does not halt.
Line 04, 05 and 06 are completely irrelevant, because the simulator
never uses them, if the claim is true. So, D's only function is the
parameter duplication, so that H simulates itself. The simulation of H
never reaches H's final state, so olcott should have said:
"When we see that the infinite set of every possible H
simulated by this H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state
and halt this remains true for H correctly simulated by simulating halt
decider H. H is required to halt but the correctly simulated H never halts."
This contradicts the requirement that H should halt.
That the directly executed H halts is irrelevant because the directly
executed D also halts and olcott claims that it is irrelevant. Both D
and H, when simulated, never reach their final state.
We can only continue if we have 100% agreement about this.
If not true, show how the simulated H reaches its final state.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3a4j9$1o3cc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334735 |
On 5/30/2024 9:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 30.mei.2024 om 15:16 schreef olcott:
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01 int D(ptr p)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }
>> Not at all. When we see that the infinite set of every possible D
>> simulated by any H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state
>> and halt this remains true for D correctly simulated by simulating halt
>> decider H. H halts and correctly simulated D never halts.
>>
>
> It is clear for anyone with a little bit of C knowledge, that if H
> halts, then D continues with line 04.
*I conclusively prove that is false in my post from 14 minutes ago*
[D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt
--- templates and infinite sets --- deciders]
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3a5tf$1oah4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334737 |
Op 30.mei.2024 om 17:05 schreef olcott:
> On 5/30/2024 9:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 30.mei.2024 om 15:16 schreef olcott:
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01 int D(ptr p)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
>
>>> Not at all. When we see that the infinite set of every possible D
>>> simulated by any H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state
>>> and halt this remains true for D correctly simulated by simulating halt
>>> decider H. H halts and correctly simulated D never halts.
>>>
>>
>> It is clear for anyone with a little bit of C knowledge, that if H
>> halts, then D continues with line 04.
>
> *I conclusively prove that is false in my post from 14 minutes ago*
> [D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt
> --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders]
>
>
And I showed that the same reasoning proves that H 'correctly simulated'
by H cannot possibly halt. You were unable to explain why H and D should
have different halt criteria.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3fngr$2o13h$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #334730 |
Am Thu, 30 May 2024 08:16:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 5/30/2024 5:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:10 schreef olcott: >>> On 5/28/2024 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach >> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number >> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of >> steps are also not enough steps for H to halt. >> >> This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of H are correctly simulated by >> H that H correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances >> what-so-ever >> *CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT H CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT* >> >> By this proof, we see that this H contradicts the requirement that it >> should halt. >> We cannot continue with this before we have agreement about it. Well played: > You should put my words in quotes otherwise people will be thinking > that you agree with me word-for-word. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3fnod$2t1ac$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #334842 |
On 6/1/2024 12:58 PM, joes wrote: > Am Thu, 30 May 2024 08:16:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 5/30/2024 5:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:10 schreef olcott: >>>> On 5/28/2024 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 16:39 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>> When H correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach >>> its own simulated final state and halt in an infinite number >>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of >>> steps are also not enough steps for H to halt. >>> >>> This tells us that when 1 to ∞ steps of H are correctly simulated by >>> H that H correctly simulated by H never halts under any circumstances >>> what-so-ever >>> *CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT H CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H DOES NOT HALT* >>> >>> By this proof, we see that this H contradicts the requirement that it >>> should halt. *IT DOES NOT SUCH THING* >>> We cannot continue with this before we have agreement about it. > Well played: >> You should put my words in quotes otherwise people will be thinking >> that you agree with me word-for-word. > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <S3adnSAsJp_xoKH7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #333823 |
On 08/05/2024 20:05, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // 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 int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "In the universe" is not a set. In typical set theories like ZFC there
>>>>>>>>> is no universal set.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs where each D(D) that is
>>>>>>> simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ simulated steps of D and involve zero to ∞
>>>>>>> recursive simulations of H simulating itself simulating D(D). Every time Lines 1,2,3 are
>>>>>>> simulated again defines
>>>>>>> one more level of recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can think of many more simulations that
>>>>>> only these.
>>>>>
>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs where
>>>>> each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>
>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its line
>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
>>>> is another question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>
>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>
>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>
>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows HH to detect whether it is the
>> outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH. As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to
>> the outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally separate "I am called in
>> nested mode" code path!
>>
>
> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
> be a computable function.
>
> *Maybe you can settle this*
>
> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>
I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance that you won't quote me
elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support of your claims. Not that I can really enforce this,
but I think for the most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement you made
on this, if you chose to make one.
You understand the reason I ask this: you are unfortunately completely unable to judge what other
people say to you, and as soon as you (mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of
your argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that [something I did not agree
to, or some literal quote taken out of context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]."
If I persuade you of anything, of course you can present those views /as your own words/, but none
of that "Mike Terry said..." or "an expert (lol) has agreed that..." and so on. Those are attempts
to silence opposition through (mistaken) appeals to authority and I don't want to be involved in that.
Of course you can quote me freely within this thread where it will be in context :)
Mike.
> *He used this example to prove that*
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
>
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // 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 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past
> it own line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>
> Richard keeps saying that he posted proof otherwise and
> absolutely will not provide this "proof".
>
>
>> You agreed this a few weeks ago. Or have you fixed this code now? I bet you haven't.
>>
>
> That you proved it can be fixed on the basis that a simulator can
> examine every detail of its simulated input's internal state seems
> to prove that it can be fixed.
>
> This is good enough for my current state of physical health.
> I can't drop everything and take six months to make this fix
> before proving my point.
>
> We are only talking about a simple hypothetical that four
> experts in C (two of them with master's in CS) already agreed to.
> Richard just doesn't seem able to tell the truth about this.
>
>> Until you fix the code you should not be referring to it as "fully operational" code, because it
>> is simply WRONG and so does not demonstrate anything at all.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike.
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v1hgvb$en3a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333853 |
On 5/8/2024 10:05 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 08/05/2024 20:05, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // 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 int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set
>>>>>>>>>>>> of pairs
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "In the universe" is not a set. In typical set theories like
>>>>>>>>>> ZFC there
>>>>>>>>>> is no universal set.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>>>>>>>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same
>>>>>>>> H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ simulated
>>>>>>>> steps of D and involve zero to ∞ recursive simulations of H
>>>>>>>> simulating itself simulating D(D). Every time Lines 1,2,3 are
>>>>>>>> simulated again defines
>>>>>>>> one more level of recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can think of
>>>>>>> many more simulations that only these.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its
>>>>> line
>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>
>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>
>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows
>>> HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH.
>>> As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the
>>> outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally
>>> separate "I am called in nested mode" code path!
>>>
>>
>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
>> be a computable function.
>>
>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>
>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>>
>
> I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance
> that you won't quote me elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support
> of your claims. Not that I can really enforce this, but I think for the
> most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement
> you made on this, if you chose to make one.
>
That is really great Mike, you have been a wonderful help.
I will agree not to quote you anywhere else but these two
forums and I am nearly certain that I never quoted anyone
else from these forums anywhere else besides these forums.
> You understand the reason I ask this: you are unfortunately completely
> unable to judge what other people say to you, and as soon as you
> (mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of your
> argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that
> [something I did not agree to, or some literal quote taken out of
> context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]."
>
OK, so I agree that I will only quote you using the message ID
of your reply with its time/date stamp and I will only quote
you in these forums. I am at least 99% certain that I never
named anyone in these forums in any other forums or any other
means of communication.
Your greatest help was to confirm my intuition that a simulating
termination analyzer can examine any internal details of the state
of its simulated input as it simulates this input. That seem to
to confirm that the basic notion of a simulating termination analyzer
<is> Turing Computable.
> If I persuade you of anything, of course you can present those views /as
> your own words/, but none of that "Mike Terry said..." or "an expert
> (lol) has agreed that..." and so on. Those are attempts to silence
> opposition through (mistaken) appeals to authority and I don't want to
> be involved in that.
>
As long as I can quote you in these forums with the message ID
and time/date stamp that will be good enough.
> Of course you can quote me freely within this thread where it will be in
> context :)
>
> Mike.
>
>> *He used this example to prove that*
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>>
>> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
>> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
>> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
>> *Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // 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 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past
>> it own line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
>> Richard keeps saying that he posted proof otherwise and
>> absolutely will not provide this "proof".
>>
>>
>>> You agreed this a few weeks ago. Or have you fixed this code now? I
>>> bet you haven't.
>>>
>>
>> That you proved it can be fixed on the basis that a simulator can
>> examine every detail of its simulated input's internal state seems
>> to prove that it can be fixed.
>>
>> This is good enough for my current state of physical health.
>> I can't drop everything and take six months to make this fix
>> before proving my point.
>>
>> We are only talking about a simple hypothetical that four
>> experts in C (two of them with master's in CS) already agreed to.
>> Richard just doesn't seem able to tell the truth about this.
>>
>>> Until you fix the code you should not be referring to it as "fully
>>> operational" code, because it is simply WRONG and so does not
>>> demonstrate anything at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike.
>>
>>
>>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web