Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335351 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 270 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 23:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 07:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 18:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 18:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-12 02:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:19 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:50 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:57 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:24 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 20:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:04 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 22:14 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 23:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 07:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:34 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 20:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:16 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:50 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 06:56 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:35 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:23 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:18 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:41 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:50 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:04 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:23 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:33 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 14:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:11 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:32 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:48 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:26 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:09 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:17 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 11:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:38 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:18 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:42 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:33 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:45 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 16:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 15:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:58 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:24 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:31 -0500
Re: Dogma -- other deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:03 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:41 -0400
DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:23 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 23:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:42 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:15 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:30 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 21:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:06 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:51 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 08:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:16 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 07:40 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:54 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:23 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:08 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:02 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:03 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 19:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:52 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-13 14:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56i60$onl3$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335810 |
On 6/22/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. >> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >> Only if H returns. >> >>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>>>> Halt. >>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D) >>>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that behavior >>>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the >>>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just >>>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the >>> behavior of D(D). >> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >> H just can't map it. >> >>> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H *must >>> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. >> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >> >>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive >>> chain where the second call is always aborted. >>> *these two calls are not identical* >> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >> >>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>> will return. >> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >> nonterminating >> inputs. >> > > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as > the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not > call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. > > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as > the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES > call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. > Which just shows that H doesn't do an OBJECTIVELY "Correct Simulation". The error in the simulation has been pointed out, but you just don't understand it, it seems because you think truth is just naturally subjective, but it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56iqf$3or0r$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335819 |
On 6/22/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/22/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. >>> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >>> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >>> Only if H returns. >>> >>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>>>>> Halt. >>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>>> D(D) >>>>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>>> behavior >>>>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >>> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when >>>>> the >>>>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by >>>>> just >>>>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the >>>> behavior of D(D). >>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>> H just can't map it. >>> >>>> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H >>>> *must >>>> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. >>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>> >>>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive >>>> chain where the second call is always aborted. >>>> *these two calls are not identical* >>> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >>> >>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>>> will return. >>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>> nonterminating >>> inputs. >>> >> >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as >> the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not >> call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. >> >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as >> the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES >> call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. >> > > Which just shows that H doesn't do an OBJECTIVELY "Correct Simulation". > If you weren't simply lying about this and risking eternal damnation then you could point out which x86 instruction was emulated incorrectly. Since you already know that none of them were emulated incorrectly I suggest that you repent. > The error in the simulation has been pointed out, but you just don't > understand it, it seems because you think truth is just naturally > subjective, but it isn't. -- 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 | 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56jvh$onl3$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335824 |
On 6/22/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/22/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. >>>> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >>>> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >>>> Only if H returns. >>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> Halt. >>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>>>> D(D) >>>>>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >>>> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least >>>>>> when the >>>>>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by >>>>>> just >>>>>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>>>> the >>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>>> H just can't map it. >>>> >>>>> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H >>>>> *must >>>>> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. >>>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>>> >>>>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a >>>>> recursive >>>>> chain where the second call is always aborted. >>>>> *these two calls are not identical* >>>> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >>>> >>>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>>>> will return. >>>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>>> nonterminating >>>> inputs. >>>> >>> >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as >>> the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not >>> call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. >>> >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as >>> the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES >>> call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. >>> >> >> Which just shows that H doesn't do an OBJECTIVELY "Correct Simulation". >> > > If you weren't simply lying about this and risking eternal damnation > then you could point out which x86 instruction was emulated incorrectly. > The CALL H instruction > Since you already know that none of them were emulated incorrectly > I suggest that you repent. Really, then why have you been unable to post the actual trace of the simulation of DDD (or D, or DD) simulated by H (or HH, or HH0, or whatever) that actually shows a correct simulation of the call to the decider instruction. Your short inline traces NEVER actually simulate that call instruction, but switch to looking at the simulation that was being CONDITIONALLY simulated (since the decider has the option to abort) instead of showing the act of simulation with the conditional in that operation. Your long traces have alwasy been the execution trace of the simulator its self, and not the simulation it was doing. So, your "verifaction" is based on somethng that you have been unable to produce, and almost certainly something you haven't actually seen for yourself (or you would have post it instead of the wrong trace TWICE). I will point out that you seem to be willing to gamble your eternal soul on facts that you just beleive must be true, even though everyone is pointing out your errors. It seems that what ever "Heaven" you get to, you are apt to be alone in it, which will mean it isn't Heaven. > >> The error in the simulation has been pointed out, but you just don't >> understand it, it seems because you think truth is just naturally >> subjective, but it isn't. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v540cu$36ipc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335759 |
On 6/20/2024 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" >>>>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong >>>>>>>> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes >>>>>>>> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient >>>>>>>> technical competence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>>>> >>>>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that >>>>> decider are supposed to use, as >>>>> >>>> >>>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >>>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >>>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! >>> >>> >>> No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your >>> POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is >>> defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem >>> BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. >>> >> >> _DDD() >> [00002093] 55 push ebp >> [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD >> [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 >> [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [000020a3] 5d pop ebp >> [000020a4] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] >> >> There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated >> by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to >> the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address >> [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* >> >> *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* >> > > It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider! > The behavior (halting or not) of a finite string of x86 machine code is ruled by the semantics of the x86 language. This behavior is the sequence of state transitions that are specified by the x86 finite string of machine code within the semantics of the x86 programming language. When we look at the behavior that DDD specifies this behavior includes that DDD specifies a recursive simulation of itself. People stuck in rebuttal mode hate to go though these steps because it derails their rebuttal mode with objective facts. _DDD() [00002093] 55 push ebp [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000020a3] 5d pop ebp [000020a4] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] -- 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 | 2024-06-21 10:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v543ef$lkkb$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335765 |
On 6/21/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2024 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" >>>>>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong >>>>>>>>> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes >>>>>>>>> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient >>>>>>>>> technical competence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>>>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>>>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that >>>>>> decider are supposed to use, as >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >>>>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! >>>> >>>> >>>> No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in >>>> your POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is >>>> defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem >>>> BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. >>>> >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002093] 55 push ebp >>> [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>> [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD >>> [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 >>> [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>> [000020a3] 5d pop ebp >>> [000020a4] c3 ret >>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] >>> >>> There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated >>> by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to >>> the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address >>> [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* >>> >>> *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* >>> >> >> It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider! >> > > The behavior (halting or not) of a finite string of x86 > machine code is ruled by the semantics of the x86 language. Right. > > This behavior is the sequence of state transitions that are > specified by the x86 finite string of machine code within > the semantics of the x86 programming language. Right. > > When we look at the behavior that DDD specifies this behavior > includes that DDD specifies a recursive simulation of itself. Nope, ir specifies that it calls a SPECIFIC HH0 that you have defined will simulate its input for so long and then abort. HH0 is a fixed defined piece of code to ask the question, and since you are claiming HH0 is correct to return 0, we need to verify the DDD that uses that HH0, since that is what HH0 was given. > > People stuck in rebuttal mode hate to go though these steps > because it derails their rebuttal mode with objective facts. People stuck in their own lies can never see the truth. The following is NOT a complete definition of the input, if it is, then the "correct behavior" is that the code behavior is UNDEFINED when it accesses information not within itself and thus the question is not valid. > > _DDD() > [00002093] 55 push ebp > [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD > [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 > [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [000020a3] 5d pop ebp > [000020a4] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500 |
| Subject | DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335503 |
On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>> >>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>> >>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>> for an error and finding none. >>> >>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>> respected journal. >>> >> >> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >> > > It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in the > reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against > finding no errors in their rebuttal. I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 your reply will be ignored. When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior as the directly executed DDD(). -- 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 | 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v576k7$3sg5o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335849 |
Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: > On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>> present >>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>> >>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>> >>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>>> respected journal. >>>> >>> >>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >>> >> >> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in the >> reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against >> finding no errors in their rebuttal. > > I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake > rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you > change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 > your reply will be ignored. > > When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation > is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see > that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to > H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. > > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) > [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002182] 5d pop ebp > [00002183] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] > > When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not > call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 > that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior > as the directly executed DDD(). > Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. H1 shows that a correct simulation of H0 halts, but H0 is unable to simulate itself up to its final state. It aborts one cycle before the simulation would end, as is shown by H1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v576oh$3soh6$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335853 |
On 6/22/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>> present >>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>> >>>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>>>> respected journal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >>>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >>>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >>>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >>>> >>> >>> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in >>> the reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against >>> finding no errors in their rebuttal. >> >> I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake >> rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you >> change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 >> your reply will be ignored. >> >> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see >> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to >> H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. >> >> _DDD() >> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >> [00002183] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >> >> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not >> call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 >> that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior >> as the directly executed DDD(). >> > > Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. Incorrect and Strawman deception -- 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 | 2024-06-22 15:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v577l9$onl4$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335855 |
On 6/22/24 2:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>>>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>>>>> respected journal. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >>>>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >>>>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >>>>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in >>>> the reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself >>>> against finding no errors in their rebuttal. >>> >>> I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake >>> rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you >>> change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 >>> your reply will be ignored. >>> >>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see >>> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to >>> H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>> [00002183] c3 ret >>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>> >>> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not >>> call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 >>> that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior >>> as the directly executed DDD(). >>> >> >> Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. > Incorrect and Strawman deception > Nope, Correct and shows the error in your logic. If you want to admit to be working on POOP, you can call it correct POOP deciding, but it isn't correct HALT deciding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335849 |
Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: > When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the > semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is > correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly > return. Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335962 |
On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>
>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>> return.
> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);
void DDD()
{
H0(DDD);
}
int main()
{
H0(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.
Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
--
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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #335968 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>> return. >> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. [ .... ] > The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated > by H0 cannot possibly return. > Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the > only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody else would argue against that, either. > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5einq$1j1no$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335969 |
On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: > >>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>> return. >>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. > > [ .... ] > >> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >> by H0 cannot possibly return. > >> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. > > I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 > should terminate because it's a decider. We must go though my points one-at-a-time and in order otherwise we continue to talk in circles for 15 years as I did with Ben. We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as correct. I am unwilling to play head games with people that deny verified facts. I am unwilling to talk in endless circles. I must get 100% complete closure on each point before moving on to the next point. > You're saying that when H0 is > "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody > arguing against that. > Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until after we have 100% closure on the prior point. > So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody > else would argue against that, either. > I never said anything like that. It is all a matter of me not tolerating the slightest nuance of any head games what-so-ever. >> -- >> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > -- 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5ekeh$24l4$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #335970 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>> return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> [ .... ] >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. > We must go though my points one-at-a-time and in order otherwise > we continue to talk in circles for 15 years as I did with Ben. Just who do you think you are? If we had to constrain ourselves to your intellectual level, progress in these threads would grind to a near complete halt. Remember, you're the one who's spent nearly 20 years on something a typical undergraduate grasps in a few hours at most, and you still don't get it. > We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as > correct. I am unwilling to play head games with people that > deny verified facts. I think Joes's point is more interesting than yours. > I am unwilling to talk in endless circles. I must get 100% > complete closure on each point before moving on to the next > point. You've been talking in endless circles on this newsgroup for many years, and that's not (mainly) because of other people's responses to you. >> You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't >> terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. > Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until > after we have 100% closure on the prior point. That's not an attitude likely to lead to fruitful discussions. >> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody >> else would argue against that, either. > I never said anything like that. It is an implication of the point you're willing to discuss at the moment. > It is all a matter of me not tolerating the slightest nuance of any > head games what-so-ever. > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5er86$134dk$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335970 |
Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is >>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>> possibly return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. Thanks. > We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as correct. It IS correct. >> You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't >> terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. > Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until after we > have 100% closure on the prior point. What other point? This has been your only content for the last month. >> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >> anybody else would argue against that, either. > I never said anything like that. It is all a matter of me not tolerating > the slightest nuance of any head games what-so-ever. You said H0 doesn't terminate. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5eual$1lar1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335975 |
On 6/25/2024 11:28 AM, joes wrote: > Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> >>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is >>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>> possibly return. >>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>> should terminate because it's a decider. > Thanks. > >> We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as correct. > It IS correct. > >>> You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't >>> terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. >> Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until after we >> have 100% closure on the prior point. > What other point? This has been your only content for the last month. > >>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>> anybody else would argue against that, either. >> I never said anything like that. It is all a matter of me not tolerating >> the slightest nuance of any head games what-so-ever. > You said H0 doesn't terminate. > *I never said that* _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot possibly return. Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. -- 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 | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5f932$134dk$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335976 |
Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:21:25 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/25/2024 11:28 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> You said H0 doesn't terminate. > *I never said that* ... > The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot > possibly return. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions |
| Message-ID | <v5ejou$1j1no$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335969 |
On 6/25/2024 9:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>> return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> >> [ .... ] >> >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody >> arguing against that. >> >> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody >> else would argue against that, either. > > He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It > became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the > mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator > that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was > detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for > the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), > H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! > > PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. > *Ben fails to sufficiently understand Computable Functions* Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. *given an input of the function domain* *it can return the corresponding output* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function -- 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 | 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions |
| Message-ID | <v5frvl$14bcm$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335972 |
On 6/25/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 9:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >> >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> >>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>> DDD is >>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>> return. >>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> >>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>> >>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>> anybody >>> arguing against that. >>> >>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody >>> else would argue against that, either. >> >> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for >> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), >> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >> >> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >> > > *Ben fails to sufficiently understand Computable Functions* No, Peter Olcott fails to understand what he is talking about. There is no requirement that 'Halting' even BE a computable function, and in fact has been proven not to be one. So, an argument based on it being one, starts off with a LIE. > Computable functions are the formalized analogue of > the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that > a function is computable if there exists an algorithm > that can do the job of the function, i.e. > > *given an input of the function domain* > *it can return the corresponding output* > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5epbl$1k7as$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335969 |
On 6/25/2024 10:41 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 25/06/2024 14:46, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>> return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> >> [ .... ] >> >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody >> arguing against that. > > Hehe, everyone has an opinion on what PO is saying! :) > > So here's mine: I think PO is saying that when DDD is correctly > *emulated* [not "correctly /emulating/"] then "it" will not return. > > To be clear, that's saying that the /emulation/ does not get as far as > the final return, i.e. outer H0 will stop emulating (aka "abort") > without having emulated DDD's return statement. PO has acknowledged > that the outer H0 will return after aborting its emulation. > > So what? I hear everyone asking. So what indeed! The "behaviour" of a > partial emulation is not the behaviour of the computation itself > [trivially] and not what the HP is about. But PO then gets hopelessly > muddled, thinking at least two wrong things: > _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] The call from DDD to H0(DDD) (when DDD is correctly emulated by any H0 that can possibly exist at machine address 0000217a) H0 cannot possibly return. *In other words you insist on flatly disagreeing with the* *semantics of the x86 programming language* Not very smart of you. > 1) That DDD would /never/ have terminated in "1-oo steps of emulation", > i.e. that DDD really doesn't halt, not simply that H0 aborted it before > it returned. (Thats muddling all the different examples of H in his > head each with their own personalised (D,D) inputs into one single > super-H/super-D. Of course, the FIXED DDD under discussion /does/ in > fact return in some finite number of steps. H0 is also fixed and is > coded in a way that aborts /before/ that number of steps is emulated.) > Strawman deception. DDD correctly simulated by any H0 that can possibly exist at machine address 0000217a is not the same as DDD correctly simulated by any H1 that DDD never calls. The strawman deception is a kind of lie. Why lie? > 2) PO knows that the /reason/ H0 decided to abort was that it matched > his "infinite recursive emulation" pattern in the emulation trace - > therefore he believes it's correct to decide non-halting because his > pattern proves that. (That's just Wrong, but PO really really really > believes the pattern is sound, so that's the end of it. He has no > intention or capability of ever attempting to prove his rule is sound.) > > > 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 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web