XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 6/15/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 6/15/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 6/15/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 6/15/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 6/15/24 12:22 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>  > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>  >>   
   >>>>>  >> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H   
   >>>>> computes   
   >>>>>  >> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to   
   >>>>>  >> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by   
   >>>>>  >> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the   
   >>>>>  >> behavior of the directly executed D(D)   
   >>>>>  >>   
   >>>>>  >   
   >>>>>  > Why? I don't claim it can.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions   
   >>>>> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06]   
   >>>>> are simulated/executed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges   
   >>>>> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D   
   >>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Nope, the steps of D correctly simulated by H will EXACTLY match the   
   >>>> steps of D directly executed, until H just gives up and guesses.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> When we can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly   
   >>> reach its simulated final state at machine address [00000d1d]   
   >>> after one recursive simulation and the same applies for 2,3,...N   
   >>> recursive simulations then we can abort the simulated input and   
   >>> correctly report that D correctly simulated by H DOES NOT HALT.   
   >>   
   >> Nope. Because an aborted simulation doesn't say anything about Halting,   
   >>   
   >   
   > It is the mathematical induction that says this.   
   >   
   WHAT "Mathematical Induction"?   
      
   You haven't shown the required pieces for an inductive proof.   
      
   I doubt you even know what you need to do, let alone be able to do it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)