On 2024-06-02 14:19:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/2/2024 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/1/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/1/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:

Show me where I said anything in the above spec about an aborted simulation.

So, why did HH stop simulating after some n steps?

Did it reach a final state in the simulation? if not, it ABORTED its >>>>>> simulation.

When every possible which way DD correctly simulated by HH never reaches
past its own simulated line 03 then

And a simulation either goes until it reaches a final state of the >>>>>> machine it is simulating, or it aborted its simulation.

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         HH(DD,DD);
12         return 0;
13       }

When every DD correctly simulated by any HH cannot possibly reach
past its own simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation >>>>> of DD by HH then we have exhaustively examined every possible HH/DD
pair and each element has of this infinite set has the same property. >>>>

So?

It doesn't matter how many aborted simulaiton you do of a given input
(and each HH simulated a DIFFERENT input since it simulated the
INSTANCE of the template with a different HH)

In other words one cannot prove that every five pound rock weighs
more than every three pound rock, one must weigh them one-at-a-time?

Nope. But you need to show that each rock IS a five pound rock.

IF you weigh one rock, and find it is 5 pounds, doesn't mean that
anothoer rock  rock that looks about the same is also 5 pouds,

You do seem to like you Herring in Red sauce, don't you.

The comparison here is that you have only "weighed" a very few of your
DDs, only those built on an HH that NEVER aborts have been determined
to not halt. The others are just haven't-yet-halted-after-n-steps, but
we actually DO know that they WILL Halt after more.

The ONLY simulation that actually showed that ITS input was no-halting >>>> was the HH that never aborted, and it didn't answer.

Every other HH has a DIFFERENT INPUT and would be LYING to say it had
that other input.

In other words (because each rock is different) one cannot prove that
every five pound rock weighs more than every three pound rock, one must
weigh them one-at-a-time?

Nope, unless of course you still need to weight them to show they ARE 5
pound rocks.

Every HH/DD pair of the infinite of every possible HH/DD pair
DD correctly simulated by HH NEVER HALTS.

That isn't even your original claim you were asking about.

Your claim wasn't about "Halting" because that is easily disproven, but
that there correct PARTIAL simulation done by H never reaches the
statement after the call.

You are just showing your true colors, that you just don't understand
what you are talkinag about and get your lies confused.

*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*

Nope. Aborted simulation don't prove anything.

When for each element of the infinite set of every HH/DD pair DD
correctly simulated by HH cannot get past its own simulated line 03
then we know that none of the DD inputs to each HH(DD,DD) ever halts.

Nope. Try to actually PROVE that.

Semantic tautologies are self-evident truth that prove themselves.

Not really. Only syntactic tautologies prove themselves. A proof
is a statment about syntax, not semantics. A particular semantic
tautology may be accepted as a hypothesis but then someone may
reject it as a hypothesis.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)