Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Real computer scientists like having a computer on their desk, else how could they read their mail?


devel / comp.theory / Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

SubjectAuthor
* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input toolcott
+- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
+* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
|`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| +* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| |`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | +* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | | `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |  `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |   `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |    `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |     +- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |     `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |      `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       +* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       | `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |  `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |   `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |    `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |     `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |      `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |       `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |        `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |         `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |          `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |           `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |            `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |             `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |              `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |               `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                 `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                  `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                   `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?Richard Damon
| | |       |                    `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                     `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                      `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                       `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                        `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         +* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                         |+* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         ||`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?Richard Damon
| | |       |                         || `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                         ||  `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                         |`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputMalcolm McLean
| | |       |                         | +- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                         | `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputMalcolm McLean
| | |       |                         |  +* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         |  |`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  | `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         |  |  `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  |   `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                         |  |    `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  |     `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         |  |      `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  |       `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                         |  |        `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  |         `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                         |  |          `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  |           `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                         |  |            `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  |             `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         |  |              `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputAndré G. Isaak
| | |       |                         |  |               `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         |  |                `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                         |  `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputMalcolm McLean
| | |       |                         |   `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |       |                         `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                          +* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       |                          |`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                          | `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ key axolcott
| | |       |                          |  `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |       |                          `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |       |                           `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |       `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |        `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |         `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |          +* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |          |`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputwij
| | |          | +- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |          | `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputdklei...@gmail.com
| | |          |  `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |          |   `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?Richard Damon
| | |          |    `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |          |     `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |          |      `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| | |          |       `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |          `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputChris M. Thomasson
| | |           `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| | |            `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputChris M. Thomasson
| | |             `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |              `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputChris M. Thomasson
| | |               `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |                `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputChris M. Thomasson
| | |                 `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?olcott
| | |                  `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?Ben Bacarisse
| | `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| |  `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputolcott
| |   `- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
| `* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
+- How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the inputRichard Damon
`* How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H?Ben Bacarisse

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819
Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20116&group=comp.theory#20116

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 00:14:54 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7flnnyq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<L8WdnS009KS9SYP8nZ2dnUU7-c_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl5tni1t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<gY2dnf8hF_7Vc4P8nZ2dnUU7-QdQAAAA@giganews.com>
<871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="20057"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Wj6GH8E9g19eGoqXKQcLzWW6yfTY46kQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DxZESsGME9S9TZe66Md624M+/h0=
sha1:X/VPXBxS1rgKDWs4TSWh4vixPEM=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7f9ecce18355fbe824ec.20210822001454BST.87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:14 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.

You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
the facts you are wrong about.

> It does seem to be beyond you intellectual capacity.

As I've said before, you just can't take agreement can you? All you
have left is endlessly repeating irrelevant facts about what would
happen, rather than what does happen.

> I was quite shocked to discover how little you understood operating
> system context switching. This is probably not beyond your
> intellectual capacity merely your current level of knowledge.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch

I imagine this sort of thing stokes your ego. It certainly has no
effect on mine.

Here's why you are wrong in three sentences. The ⊢* line above yet
again asserts that your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That halting
computation is encoded as the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. Your H incorrectly
rejects this instance of the halting problem.

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20118&group=comp.theory#20118

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:20:19 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7flnnyq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <L8WdnS009KS9SYP8nZ2dnUU7-c_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl5tni1t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <gY2dnf8hF_7Vc4P8nZ2dnUU7-QdQAAAA@giganews.com> <871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 18:20:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DQyUHnpyTlP5pmojvcbrZW21cL3MMh/zFp/7f63kaIOk5NJWXX/9CrjlMpZkUwcyKG6IwnOOG2rGMb/!FvSCPBcFntQNITVJDbUhxSIyYmRdeA/Hyw1b+r0FJTzbb3LQLPAbxkPzwmUVFh6w4oUjyaKt7wYS!+6A=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3983
 by: olcott - Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:20 UTC

On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>
> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
> the facts you are wrong about.
>

You never agreed to this before. Now we apply this Theorem:

Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
input is an input that never halts.

And we derive that the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ did
correctly decide that its input would never halt and this meets the
requirement of the halting problem:

the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
to run forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

In order to show that the above two definitions have been satisfied we
only have to show that (an at least partial) halt decider H does
correctly decide whether or not its input description of a Turing
machine or computer program would halt on its input.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<a%fUI.2558$Qa2.1926@fx21.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20120&group=comp.theory#20120

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx21.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input
to H? [ computational dependence ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7flnnyq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <L8WdnS009KS9SYP8nZ2dnUU7-c_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl5tni1t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <gY2dnf8hF_7Vc4P8nZ2dnUU7-QdQAAAA@giganews.com>
<871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <a%fUI.2558$Qa2.1926@fx21.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 19:29:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4456
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:29 UTC

On 8/21/21 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>
>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>
>
> You never agreed to this before. Now we apply this Theorem:

this unproven, unsound Theorem.
>
> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
> input is an input that never halts.

This is a direct contradiction to the definition of Halting and what a
Halt decider is.

ANY machine that Halts is a Halting Machine, it doesn't matter why.
Halting is independent of the decider being used to decide it.

>
> And we derive that the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ did
> correctly decide that its input would never halt and this meets the
> requirement of the halting problem:
>

Nope, it INCORRECTLY determines that because it used unsound logic and
it is proven that H^(<H^>) is a halting compuatation.

>      the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
>      is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
>      does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
>      computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
>
>      In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>      determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>      and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
>      to run forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Rigbt. And H^(<H^>) Halts. H is given the description of this machine.
Thus the right answer is Halting.

>
> In order to show that the above two definitions have been satisfied we
> only have to show that (an at least partial) halt decider H does
> correctly decide whether or not its input description of a Turing
> machine or computer program would halt on its input.
>

All you show is that H has simulated H^(<H^>) to a not-yet-halting
state. This in it self proves nothing. It can be otherwise proven that
H^(<H^>) is a Halting Computation, so H is proved WRONG.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20121&group=comp.theory#20121

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 02:27:22 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl5tni1t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<gY2dnf8hF_7Vc4P8nZ2dnUU7-QdQAAAA@giganews.com>
<871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="9239"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DdwuVH/oie9klmXUrOSzMgR4qNKxU3bw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KzCLwyL9kyLUN2DPBVbgXx1pRho=
sha1:2ke8krJwcgto6+EDS9JoGYj6ZhA=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.5a996a58fe259550a6dc.20210822022722BST.87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 01:27 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>
>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
>> the facts you are wrong about.
>
> You never agreed to this before.

Don't be silly. I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
problem. You remember the POOH problem? What happens "unless" (rather
than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
for years.

> Now we apply this Theorem:
> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
> input is an input that never halts.

This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
POOH problem. A problem no one else cares about.

Don't feel bad. Only a short while ago you didn't know what a function
was in mathematics. And you still don't accept basic facts about
entailment[1]. You have a way to go yet to know what a theorem is.

> And we derive that the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ did
> correctly decide that its input would never halt and this meets the
> requirement of the halting problem:

No, you mean the POOH problem. The halting problem is about what
string encode halting computations:

> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).

As Linz says, a halt decider should accept the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because it
encodes a halting computation. You were wrong to say that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
not encode a halting computation, and until you admit that, you will be
reduced to these silly games, repeating things not in doubt and
pretending that this is news.

> In order to show that the above two definitions have been satisfied we
> only have to show that (an at least partial) halt decider H does
> correctly decide whether or not its input description of a Turing
> machine or computer program would halt on its input.

You can't do that while you pretend you don't know that the string ⟨Ĥ⟩
⟨Ĥ⟩ should be accepted: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) and Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts (according to you).

You once accused me of lying because I made the mistake of thinking
that, because you yourself had stated the facts that show you are wrong,
you had admitted you are wrong. Apparently that gives you too much
credit. You can't see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes a halting computation
despite knowing the computation it encodes and that that computation
halts. Oh well. Not much I can do to help with that.

[1] You won't step back from your assertion that if {A,B,C} ⊦ X then
{A,B,C,~X} ⊬ X!
--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20123&group=comp.theory#20123

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:01:45 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input
to H? [ computational dependence ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bl5tni1t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <gY2dnf8hF_7Vc4P8nZ2dnUU7-QdQAAAA@giganews.com>
<871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 23:01:42 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 52
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-qZvdkBG4Q2BrfkSjB86zH5SecyJ2YoQ2NGNTF5tZFU4+el63LFLDT9qi8H+TnNZDy5f/q+lxVfnsVOT!kWQCPE1bdJO1VNO9Ujk+1A4lwbrp1UhqMlWaZFQsLFBoyMKycjLex+zUBWBs23P3MhiKj0WsMl+9!/No=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3868
X-Received-Bytes: 4047
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 04:01 UTC

On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>
>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>
>> You never agreed to this before.
>
> Don't be silly. I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
> problem. You remember the POOH problem? What happens "unless" (rather
> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
> for years.
>
>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>> input is an input that never halts.
>
> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
> POOH problem. A problem no one else cares about.
>

You have already agreed to it:

On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Truism:
>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>
> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
> decider.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<0WpUI.59077$Nc1.2096@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20124&group=comp.theory#20124

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bl5tni1t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <gY2dnf8hF_7Vc4P8nZ2dnUU7-QdQAAAA@giganews.com> <871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <0WpUI.59077$Nc1.2096@fx34.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 06:46:19 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4554
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 10:46 UTC

On 8/22/21 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>
>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change
>>>> any of
>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>
>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>
>> Don't be silly.  I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>> problem.  You remember the POOH problem?  What happens "unless" (rather
>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>> for years.
>>
>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>
>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
>> POOH problem.  A problem no one else cares about.
>>
>
> You have already agreed to it:
>
> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Truism:
>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>
>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>> decider.
>

I think you just got him too confused at some point and he made a
misstatement. You abuse the language enough that this is quite possible.

It doesn't really matter what one person says, it matters what it
actually the truth.

The key point is that if THIS instance of Halts would simulate long
enough, would it reach a halting point in the computation. THIS instance
meaning this chang e doesn't similarly alter copys of Halts that are
included in the computation.

Or, stated differently, if THIS instance of Halts was replaced with a
UTM, then if the machine doesn't halt, it is non-halting. This operation
is not to affect any other copy of Halts embedded in the computation.

It is restricting the change to just this copy and not changing the
copies in the computation that you have problemss with. You keep on
wanting to change the function everywhere. This seems in part due to you
not understanding how Turing Machines work, and thinking that the 'call'
operation on a Turing Machine works just like the call instruction on a
conventional processor, which it doesn't.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20125&group=comp.theory#20125

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:34:35 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="13815"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4xeB8o8PhBzrSlf3I00mZ0UOFyrKkDOs="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OHeimsMML8ZtmHkR/7A0Q2dq+b0=
sha1:srlGXezet8w9r88aZNbphEP8c2g=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.d2ffa54ca17bd9c3ded4.20210822153435BST.8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:34 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>
>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>
>>> You never agreed to this before.
>> Don't be silly. I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>> problem. You remember the POOH problem? What happens "unless" (rather
>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>> for years.
>>
>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>
>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
>> POOH problem. A problem no one else cares about.
>
> You have already agreed to it:

Yes, I have agreed that you get to define what the correct answer is for
any instance of the POOH problem. The wold continues to spin and no one
gives a flying fig about it.

> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Truism:
>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>
>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>> decider.

I find your endless quoting of this peculiar because you disagree with
it! You adamantly state that you don't have a halt decider (as I and
the world defines is). Are your really saying that you have such an
algorithm? We know you have a partial POOH decider, but that's not what
I mean when I talk of a halt decider.

No comment of course on your mistake. It's too serious and too obvious
to do anything but deflect attention from it. Your "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
encode a halting computation" can not be justified. You know what
computation that string encodes, and you know that that computation
halts. You'd better get load up the waffle gun...

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]

<87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20126&group=comp.theory#20126

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ computational dependence ]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:45:10 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0WpUI.59077$Nc1.2096@fx34.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="13815"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18imvdM2U4xP4xUH1lEI+oxNBejlH5InqU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kui5Wuvz5p0w0UZdK8JV0o9tSew=
sha1:bBl8/Owu57l4WPdivM5HEN9k3rI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.4e5d43b1f702cad49ad5.20210822154510BST.87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:45 UTC

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 8/22/21 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change
>>>>> any of
>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>
>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>
>>> Don't be silly.  I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>>> problem.  You remember the POOH problem?  What happens "unless" (rather
>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>>> for years.
>>>
>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>
>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
>>> POOH problem.  A problem no one else cares about.
>>>
>>
>> You have already agreed to it:
>>
>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Truism:
>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>
>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>> decider.
>
> I think you just got him too confused at some point and he made a
> misstatement. You abuse the language enough that this is quite
> possible.

Excuse me! I was not at all confused. Something is lost by removing
the context (and the rest if the paragraph that PO cuts helps to make
the meaning clearer) but any algorithm that can decide that a simulation
would never stop is a halt decider. The irony is that if he uses that
algorithm to turn the simulator into a partial one, the result is not a
halt decider!

I don't really know what PO thinks I meant by these words, but since you
are sane and knowledgeable and you think I made a mistake, my words can
obviously be misunderstood. What did you think I was saying?

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ doubletalk ]

<TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20127&group=comp.theory#20127

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 10:14:14 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ doubletalk ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 10:14:11 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 71
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-w9Ecl49LVabwS7KZ1aHxp6wHfOITLMOToXEwZByyNv5QWuyMuKZz6/Ts4fjkLNuCybFUvGCA1ju7oxb!bzRO/vkg9FYgAFbxJXKQEqIQKKXGDptSDTjeP/zsXUK4DhOpJqFQDjvsXoZx4xke43vANRZ01uST!PII=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4897
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:14 UTC

On 8/22/2021 9:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>
>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>> Don't be silly. I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>>> problem. You remember the POOH problem? What happens "unless" (rather
>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>>> for years.
>>>
>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>
>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
>>> POOH problem. A problem no one else cares about.
>>
>> You have already agreed to it:
>
> Yes, I have agreed that you get to define what the correct answer is for
> any instance of the POOH problem. The wold continues to spin and no one
> gives a flying fig about it.
>
>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Truism:
>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>
>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>> decider.
>
> I find your endless quoting of this peculiar because you disagree with
> it! You adamantly state that you don't have a halt decider (as I and
> the world defines is). Are your really saying that you have such an
> algorithm? We know you have a partial POOH decider, but that's not what
> I mean when I talk of a halt decider.
>
> No comment of course on your mistake. It's too serious and too obvious
> to do anything but deflect attention from it. Your "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
> encode a halting computation" can not be justified.

It is justified on the basis that it meets the
Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020)
non halting criteria that you agreed to.

Are you going to try to doubletalk your way out of that one?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ doubletalk ]

<6DuUI.2111$S25.1449@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20128&group=comp.theory#20128

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input
to H? [ doubletalk ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871r6pylg3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <6DuUI.2111$S25.1449@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 12:07:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4879
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 16:07 UTC

On 8/22/21 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2021 9:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running
>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change
>>>>>> any of
>>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>> Don't be silly.  I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>>>> problem.  You remember the POOH problem?  What happens "unless" (rather
>>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>>>> for years.
>>>>
>>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for
>>>> the
>>>> POOH problem.  A problem no one else cares about.
>>>
>>> You have already agreed to it:
>>
>> Yes, I have agreed that you get to define what the correct answer is for
>> any instance of the POOH problem.  The wold continues to spin and no one
>> gives a flying fig about it.
>>
>>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Truism:
>>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>>
>>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>>> decider.
>>
>> I find your endless quoting of this peculiar because you disagree with
>> it!  You adamantly state that you don't have a halt decider (as I and
>> the world defines is).  Are your really saying that you have such an
>> algorithm?  We know you have a partial POOH decider, but that's not what
>> I mean when I talk of a halt decider.
>>
>> No comment of course on your mistake.  It's too serious and too obvious
>> to do anything but deflect attention from it.  Your "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>> encode a halting computation" can not be justified. 
>
> It is justified on the basis that it meets the
> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020)
> non halting criteria that you agreed to.
>
> Are you going to try to doubletalk your way out of that one?
>
>

You mean your unsound and unproved drivel?

Your last draft still has the error that you talk about a machine
returning an answer to its input, which is a categorical error.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ doubletalk ]

<87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20129&group=comp.theory#20129

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ doubletalk ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:14:58 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="27946"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//Ivw6RivWFBot91Ig+i4PKJlu1AhjuzE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SiBFjMbSXIEXIrVib5JkzYrA/PE=
sha1:T3bMD4Js9hQ7I4Yn/MdCSCqTOAc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.3232fb021c25f9c85242.20210822171458BST.87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 16:14 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 8/22/2021 9:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
>>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>> Don't be silly. I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>>>> problem. You remember the POOH problem? What happens "unless" (rather
>>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>>>> for years.
>>>>
>>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
>>>> POOH problem. A problem no one else cares about.
>>>
>>> You have already agreed to it:
>> Yes, I have agreed that you get to define what the correct answer is for
>> any instance of the POOH problem. The wold continues to spin and no one
>> gives a flying fig about it.
>>
>>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Truism:
>>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>>
>>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>>> decider.
>> I find your endless quoting of this peculiar because you disagree with
>> it! You adamantly state that you don't have a halt decider (as I and
>> the world defines is). Are your really saying that you have such an
>> algorithm? We know you have a partial POOH decider, but that's not what
>> I mean when I talk of a halt decider.
>>
>> No comment of course on your mistake. It's too serious and too obvious
>> to do anything but deflect attention from it. Your "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>> encode a halting computation" can not be justified.
>
> It is justified on the basis that it meets the
> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020)
> non halting criteria that you agreed to.

But not on the basis of what a halt decider is.

a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.

> Are you going to try to doubletalk your way out of that one?

It would be a waste of everyone's time but would serve you well as a
distraction from a, b and c. What matters (or should matter to you) is
that you are obviously wrong. That remains true even if I were to agree
with everything you have ever said.

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]

<ae-dnRm7Xc6LHb_8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20130&group=comp.theory#20130

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 11:49:26 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <0WpUI.59077$Nc1.2096@fx34.iad> <87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 11:49:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ae-dnRm7Xc6LHb_8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 85
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ygqDehTj6XKXqZRh2ZiclwD1aEhgFHNJ+Z93gRKxst7xGaN08f3ES78VC9iFsCcgZvriIACd/mFtD1r!zgejqWF43nFbNHsmn9ICR8RiOA9PfANDF89GjWCpui14Jnrl/Hj36FLDkJcm/gkOhvWAlIkvbR2Z!jHY=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5587
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 16:49 UTC

On 8/22/2021 9:45 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 8/22/21 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change
>>>>>> any of
>>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly.  I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>>>> problem.  You remember the POOH problem?  What happens "unless" (rather
>>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>>>> for years.
>>>>
>>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
>>>> POOH problem.  A problem no one else cares about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have already agreed to it:
>>>
>>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Truism:
>>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>>
>>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>>> decider.
>>
>> I think you just got him too confused at some point and he made a
>> misstatement. You abuse the language enough that this is quite
>> possible.
>
> Excuse me! I was not at all confused. Something is lost by removing
> the context (and the rest if the paragraph that PO cuts helps to make
> the meaning clearer) but any algorithm that can decide that a simulation
> would never stop is a halt decider. The irony is that if he uses that
> algorithm to turn the simulator into a partial one, the result is not a
> halt decider!
>
> I don't really know what PO thinks I meant by these words, but since you
> are sane and knowledgeable and you think I made a mistake, my words can
> obviously be misunderstood. What did you think I was saying?
>

While a simulating halt decider is in simulation mode it cannot possibly
have any effect on the behavior of its input. While it cannot possibly
have any effect on the behavior of its input it is computationally
equivalent to a pure simulator's effect on the behavior of its input.

While a simulating halt decider is computationally equivalent to a pure
simulator and this simulation would never stop unless it stops it at
some point we can know that this input specifies infinite execution.

There may be some double-talk "rebuttal" that will fool the ignorant and
gullible if you try hard enough. The ignorant and gullible are not in my
target audience.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]

<YBvUI.4002$%z6.3382@fx22.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20131&group=comp.theory#20131

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx22.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input
to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_vWdncL-lplbl4L8nZ2dnUU7-f3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0WpUI.59077$Nc1.2096@fx34.iad> <87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<ae-dnRm7Xc6LHb_8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ae-dnRm7Xc6LHb_8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <YBvUI.4002$%z6.3382@fx22.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:14:30 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6372
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:14 UTC

On 8/22/21 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2021 9:45 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/22/21 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running
>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change
>>>>>>> any of
>>>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't be silly.  I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>>>>> problem.  You remember the POOH problem?  What happens "unless"
>>>>> (rather
>>>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>>>>> for years.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means
>>>>> for the
>>>>> POOH problem.  A problem no one else cares about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have already agreed to it:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Truism:
>>>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>>>> decider.
>>>
>>> I think you just got him too confused at some point and he made a
>>> misstatement. You abuse the language enough that this is quite
>>> possible.
>>
>> Excuse me!  I was not at all confused.  Something is lost by removing
>> the context (and the rest if the paragraph that PO cuts helps to make
>> the meaning clearer) but any algorithm that can decide that a simulation
>> would never stop is a halt decider.  The irony is that if he uses that
>> algorithm to turn the simulator into a partial one, the result is not a
>> halt decider!
>>
>> I don't really know what PO thinks I meant by these words, but since you
>> are sane and knowledgeable and you think I made a mistake, my words can
>> obviously be misunderstood.  What did you think I was saying?
>>
>
> While a simulating halt decider is in simulation mode it cannot possibly
> have any effect on the behavior of its input. While it cannot possibly
> have any effect on the behavior of its input it is computationally
> equivalent to a pure simulator's effect on the behavior of its input.

EXCEPT, that the term 'Computational Equivalent' is an absolute term
that applies to COMPLETE Computations, not pieces of them.

>
> While a simulating halt decider is computationally equivalent to a pure
> simulator and this simulation would never stop unless it stops it at
> some point we can know that this input specifies infinite execution.

UNSOUND LOGIC. Given that we are talking about an H that will answer
H(H^,H^), then this H WILL abort its simulation, and thus not be a pure
simulation, and thus we see that H^ WILL Halt, we know that this is not
true.

It is unsound logic to use the behavior of one machine to decribe the
behavior of a different machine.

The fact that Hn doesn't abort its simulation and thus Hn^(<Hn^) is
non-halting says NOTHING about the behavior of Ha^(<Ha^>) built on the
Ha that will abort it.

You are trying to use a FALSE logical operation.

>
> There may be some double-talk "rebuttal" that will fool the ignorant and
> gullible if you try hard enough. The ignorant and gullible are not in my
> target audience.
>

Yes, you use a lot of double-talk non-rebuttal that might fool the
ignorant, and clearly has confused yourself.

Your admission that you don't read the rebuttals says volumes about the
accuracy of your review of them, as is the fact that you never actually
try to show an error in them, merely just re-assert your faulty claims.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20132&group=comp.theory#20132

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 12:18:47 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 12:18:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 129
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ccVd9AAmrmiioE3qx5j4tC45YUdYkZ3TQ91BuXpkD5KczGmVGFJ/FkuiuPi7+MLUwQgdvX+rNwrHVNv!WdDINZfCBM9/dkoSPK6kGyr+F7ZAGSO/6yn7iV3LyhoW+LKrHiuodBmDmfreEp2GwbJ8g7XBqHzV!Gss=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7709
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 17:18 UTC

On 8/22/2021 11:14 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/22/2021 9:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running unless
>>>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they change any of
>>>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>>> Don't be silly. I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other Halting"
>>>>> problem. You remember the POOH problem? What happens "unless" (rather
>>>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been pulling
>>>>> for years.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
>>>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
>>>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means for the
>>>>> POOH problem. A problem no one else cares about.
>>>>
>>>> You have already agreed to it:
>>> Yes, I have agreed that you get to define what the correct answer is for
>>> any instance of the POOH problem. The wold continues to spin and no one
>>> gives a flying fig about it.
>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Truism:
>>>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>>>> decider.
>>> I find your endless quoting of this peculiar because you disagree with
>>> it! You adamantly state that you don't have a halt decider (as I and
>>> the world defines is). Are your really saying that you have such an
>>> algorithm? We know you have a partial POOH decider, but that's not what
>>> I mean when I talk of a halt decider.
>>>
>>> No comment of course on your mistake. It's too serious and too obvious
>>> to do anything but deflect attention from it. Your "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>> encode a halting computation" can not be justified.
>>
>> It is justified on the basis that it meets the
>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020)
>> non halting criteria that you agreed to.
>
> But not on the basis of what a halt decider is.
>

You already agreed that it <is> a halting decider, any reversal on this
can only be construed as deception.

> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

The difference in the behavior of the Ĥ at the beginning of the above
template and the behavior of the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is accounted
for by the fact that these are distinctly different computations that
are not computationally equivalent.

This is much more easily understood by the H(P,P) model where every
detail is explicitly specified and no details are left to the
imagination. The very preliminary very rough draft of this analysis is
currently on page 7 of this paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

The basic idea that two distinctly different computations are not
required to have the same behavior is very obviously correct common
knowledge.

The analysis of how these intuitively identical computations are
actually distinctly different is the only difficult aspect of this. The
verified fact that their correct x86 execution trace is not the same
conclusively proves that they are distinctly different computations,
thus can have different behavior without contradiction.

The same function with the same input must derive identical results or
the results are not a pure function of its inputs.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

In the above computation the computational distinction between Ĥ.qx that
transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn and its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ that
never transitions to any final state is that the execution of Ĥ.qx is
the outer-most instance of what would otherwise be an infinite set of
nested simulations.

It is the only instance of Ĥ.qx that is not under the dominion of
another instance of Ĥ.qx. This makes this outermost instance
computationally distinct from the inner instances.

>> Are you going to try to doubletalk your way out of that one?
>
> It would be a waste of everyone's time but would serve you well as a
> distraction from a, b and c. What matters (or should matter to you) is
> that you are obviously wrong. That remains true even if I were to agree
> with everything you have ever said.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<WKmdnbc68LLPBb_8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20133&group=comp.theory#20133

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:32:50 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 13:32:48 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <WKmdnbc68LLPBb_8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 165
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-uKfuqxQILMzWrhNQqPCk1gdKa7sGS4xKHh8F5IaXkEh9pIEc34COeHZs7K2uzQt4WSCiyCQVxllz8tc!CoSjftQ+Rq015FxP4NM3HBrpCa5lBKsfxOQ4tVtOZSWaheW5me81LTbyws+zzDIuxp3hbsSjw/W/!38Y=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8593
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 18:32 UTC

On 8/22/2021 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2021 11:14 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 8/22/2021 9:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation
>>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops running
>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they
>>>>>>>> change any of
>>>>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>>>> Don't be silly.  I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other
>>>>>> Halting"
>>>>>> problem.  You remember the POOH problem?  What happens "unless"
>>>>>> (rather
>>>>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been
>>>>>> pulling
>>>>>> for years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> POOH problem.  A problem no one else cares about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have already agreed to it:
>>>> Yes, I have agreed that you get to define what the correct answer is
>>>> for
>>>> any instance of the POOH problem.  The wold continues to spin and no
>>>> one
>>>> gives a flying fig about it.
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Truism:
>>>>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>>>>> decider.
>>>> I find your endless quoting of this peculiar because you disagree with
>>>> it!  You adamantly state that you don't have a halt decider (as I and
>>>> the world defines is).  Are your really saying that you have such an
>>>> algorithm?  We know you have a partial POOH decider, but that's not
>>>> what
>>>> I mean when I talk of a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> No comment of course on your mistake.  It's too serious and too obvious
>>>> to do anything but deflect attention from it.  Your "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>> encode a halting computation" can not be justified.
>>>
>>> It is justified on the basis that it meets the
>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020)
>>> non halting criteria that you agreed to.
>>
>> But not on the basis of what a halt decider is.
>>
>
> You already agreed that it <is> a halting decider, any reversal on this
> can only be construed as deception.
>
>> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> The difference in the behavior of the Ĥ at the beginning of the above
> template and the behavior of the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is accounted
> for by the fact that these are distinctly different computations that
> are not computationally equivalent.
>
> This is much more easily understood by the H(P,P) model where every
> detail is explicitly specified and no details are left to the
> imagination. The very preliminary very rough draft of this analysis is
> currently on page 7 of this paper.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
> The basic idea that two distinctly different computations are not
> required to have the same behavior is very obviously correct common
> knowledge.
>
> The analysis of how these intuitively identical computations are
> actually distinctly different is the only difficult aspect of this. The
> verified fact that their correct x86 execution trace is not the same
> conclusively proves that they are distinctly different computations,
> thus can have different behavior without contradiction.
>
> The same function with the same input must derive identical results or
> the results are not a pure function of its inputs.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> In the above computation the computational distinction between Ĥ.qx that
> transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn and its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ that
> never transitions to any final state is that the execution of Ĥ.qx is
> the outer-most instance of what would otherwise be an infinite set of
> nested simulations.
>
> It is the only instance of Ĥ.qx that is not under the dominion of
> another instance of Ĥ.qx. This makes this outermost instance
> computationally distinct from the inner instances.
>

The executed instances of H(P,P) are distinctly different computations
than the simulated instances in that the executed instances are not
under the dominion of a halt decider. It is this difference that enables
them to have different behavior.

// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
P((u32)P);
}

>>> Are you going to try to doubletalk your way out of that one?
>>
>> It would be a waste of everyone's time but would serve you well as a
>> distraction from a, b and c.  What matters (or should matter to you) is
>> that you are obviously wrong.  That remains true even if I were to agree
>> with everything you have ever said.
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<87fsv1i9zb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20134&group=comp.theory#20134

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:56:56 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <87fsv1i9zb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WKmdnbc68LLPBb_8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="26261"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/V4G6R/Pr3TwAaW69zRhFIct+8j9vrK4k="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T8wmooYRjFV6b8eXPuhP8S3BotI=
sha1:LXKxLyLZmmLSojpUEieF0HRux+0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.39ca91cf3926cd1d3dd9.20210822195656BST.87fsv1i9zb.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 18:56 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> The executed instances of H(P,P) are distinctly different
> computations...

More deflection. Here's why you are wrong:

a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.

Which of these facts do you deny?

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<87czq5i9u0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20135&group=comp.theory#20135

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 20:00:07 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <87czq5i9u0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="26261"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RVkP3ncabK4+9bpES1rN7+U8yFlYnUNk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CxApTVb5je+T7ILF4KqEb6zmYMs=
sha1:jUQgH2+jj32aIp8SN0T5gPWOdCs=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.c9abc9b052e17afb4863.20210822200007BST.87czq5i9u0.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:00 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> You already agreed that it <is> a halting decider, any reversal on
> this can only be construed as deception.

Don't be silly. You clearly have no idea what I was saying and you
obviously don't care either or you would ask me.

>> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.

I take it you agree with a, b and c since you make no comment about
them. If you do not agree, you need to say which ones you disagree
with.

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]

<87a6l9i9sy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20136&group=comp.theory#20136

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 20:00:45 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <87a6l9i9sy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0WpUI.59077$Nc1.2096@fx34.iad> <87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<ae-dnRm7Xc6LHb_8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="26261"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197hCczhNmA+Bai+iIr9YpqnBDjDoDJPvY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ym7k0YpRDMveiV4Q4AnJhEEyq/E=
sha1:8KzJv/8pl93ntDySjcSZt0K7cgE=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.b556aaff646aee198f5e.20210822200045BST.87a6l9i9sy.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:00 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 8/22/2021 9:45 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> I don't really know what PO thinks I meant by these words, but since you
>> are sane and knowledgeable and you think I made a mistake, my words can
>> obviously be misunderstood. What did you think I was saying?
>
> While a simulating halt decider is...

You do realise I was not asking you, yes?

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<VixUI.9613$zp1.3743@fx15.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20137&group=comp.theory#20137

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news1.tnib.de!feed.news.tnib.de!news.tnib.de!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx15.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input
to H? [ distinct computations ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lf4wxuub.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WKmdnbc68LLPBb_8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <WKmdnbc68LLPBb_8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <VixUI.9613$zp1.3743@fx15.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:10:44 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9721
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:10 UTC

On 8/22/21 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2021 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/22/2021 11:14 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 8/22/2021 9:34 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/21/2021 8:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/21/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is trivially easy for me to understand that the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ by the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx never stops
>>>>>>>>>> running unless
>>>>>>>>>> this SHD aborts its simulation of ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are reduced to saying things not in dispute as if they
>>>>>>>>> change any of
>>>>>>>>> the facts you are wrong about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You never agreed to this before.
>>>>>>> Don't be silly.  I even gave this problem a name: "PO's Other
>>>>>>> Halting"
>>>>>>> problem.  You remember the POOH problem?  What happens "unless"
>>>>>>> (rather
>>>>>>> than what actually happens) is the same silly ruse you've been
>>>>>>> pulling
>>>>>>> for years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now we apply this Theorem:
>>>>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation
>>>>>>>> of this
>>>>>>>> input is an input that never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not a theorem but the definition of what "correct" means
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> POOH problem.  A problem no one else cares about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have already agreed to it:
>>>>> Yes, I have agreed that you get to define what the correct answer
>>>>> is for
>>>>> any instance of the POOH problem.  The wold continues to spin and
>>>>> no one
>>>>> gives a flying fig about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Truism:
>>>>>>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>>>>>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>> I find your endless quoting of this peculiar because you disagree with
>>>>> it!  You adamantly state that you don't have a halt decider (as I and
>>>>> the world defines is).  Are your really saying that you have such an
>>>>> algorithm?  We know you have a partial POOH decider, but that's not
>>>>> what
>>>>> I mean when I talk of a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> No comment of course on your mistake.  It's too serious and too
>>>>> obvious
>>>>> to do anything but deflect attention from it.  Your "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not
>>>>> encode a halting computation" can not be justified.
>>>>
>>>> It is justified on the basis that it meets the
>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020)
>>>> non halting criteria that you agreed to.
>>>
>>> But not on the basis of what a halt decider is.
>>>
>>
>> You already agreed that it <is> a halting decider, any reversal on
>> this can only be construed as deception.
>>
>>> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>>>
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> The difference in the behavior of the Ĥ at the beginning of the above
>> template and the behavior of the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is accounted
>> for by the fact that these are distinctly different computations that
>> are not computationally equivalent.
>>
>> This is much more easily understood by the H(P,P) model where every
>> detail is explicitly specified and no details are left to the
>> imagination. The very preliminary very rough draft of this analysis is
>> currently on page 7 of this paper.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>
>>
>> The basic idea that two distinctly different computations are not
>> required to have the same behavior is very obviously correct common
>> knowledge.
>>
>> The analysis of how these intuitively identical computations are
>> actually distinctly different is the only difficult aspect of this.
>> The verified fact that their correct x86 execution trace is not the
>> same conclusively proves that they are distinctly different
>> computations, thus can have different behavior without contradiction.
>>
>> The same function with the same input must derive identical results or
>> the results are not a pure function of its inputs.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> In the above computation the computational distinction between Ĥ.qx
>> that transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn and its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>> that never transitions to any final state is that the execution of
>> Ĥ.qx is the outer-most instance of what would otherwise be an infinite
>> set of nested simulations.
>>
>> It is the only instance of Ĥ.qx that is not under the dominion of
>> another instance of Ĥ.qx. This makes this outermost instance
>> computationally distinct from the inner instances.
>>
>
> The executed instances of H(P,P) are distinctly different computations
> than the simulated instances in that the executed instances are not
> under the dominion of a halt decider. It is this difference that enables
> them to have different behavior.

Yes, H(<H^>,<H^>) is a different computation than H^(H^) but ALL copies
of H^(<H^>) and of H(<H^>,<H^>) both executed and simulated MUST each
repectively be their same Computation (though different instances of it)
and as such MUST generate the same answer, i.e.

ALL H^(<H^>) generate the same results
ALL H(<H^>,<H^>) generate the same results.

If not, H isn't a proper computation.

Note, by DEFINITON UTM(<P>, <I>) generates EXACTLY the same results as
P(<I>) or UTM is by definition NOT a UTM.

Also, being 'under' a halt decider does NOT affect the behavior of the
Machine, since the Halt Decider just has a representation, and its job
it predict the behavior of the actual Machine. If the simulation of the
decider differs then the actual machine, it is the simulator that is WRONG.

In actuality, to be right, H(P,I) is under the dominion of P(I) as P(I)
DEFINES the answer that H must generate. H can NOT affect the behavior
or P(I), as it isn't there when P(I) is run as a machine.

Now, in this case, were H is a part of P, that H inside P does affect
it, but it then becomes the job of deciding H to be controlled by the H
that it is analyzing to figure the right answer, in other words, the
simulating H must let itself be influenced by the H that it is
simulating, since to do its job it needs to figure out what it will do.

>
> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>   P((u32)P);
> }
>
>
>>>> Are you going to try to doubletalk your way out of that one?
>>>
>>> It would be a waste of everyone's time but would serve you well as a
>>> distraction from a, b and c.  What matters (or should matter to you) is
>>> that you are obviously wrong.  That remains true even if I were to agree
>>> with everything you have ever said.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<ANidndCeG5zIP7_8nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20138&group=comp.theory#20138

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:15:33 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input
to H? [ distinct computations ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WKmdnbc68LLPBb_8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv1i9zb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:15:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87fsv1i9zb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ANidndCeG5zIP7_8nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 27
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Zfu81JxgGjYnozEhyQUl5azVsbWVGm3Va+aurK6865QEqo/xr4RVo5K/PEfJ+MCcH+GRQwcae3nyPYP!q933dgvYiikfrNxSqvhsTCg2gQJ4Sah6Mtz6yQRf0pK9Rl4k9lIMUBCtuP8djcLWECvNT44juwY1!Imk=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2876
X-Received-Bytes: 3086
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:15 UTC

On 8/22/2021 1:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> The executed instances of H(P,P) are distinctly different
>> computations...
>
> More deflection. Here's why you are wrong:
>
> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>
> Which of these facts do you deny?
>

So in other words you are saying that a computation that can be and is
aborted is exactly the same as a computation that cannot be and is not
aborted?

Do you realize how foolish that sounds?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<srednU_7RdGxPr_8nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20139&group=comp.theory#20139

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!4.us.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:19:08 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87czq5i9u0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:19:07 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87czq5i9u0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <srednU_7RdGxPr_8nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 42
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2BT8OACSBUAK9UthBsqNzuqgQizcYelyrPDEuv/xB5iMGUqSaxKqliEcmPa6e29m5VsELhWYBQYwJHo!C1NfhIrhyW3vMGuEoswxKYzCqqiF8iuwgVOyqNar7GgWsCZxM1XQfg2EzZdt1cnR631gpY3jfei7!5jU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3504
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:19 UTC

On 8/22/2021 2:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> You already agreed that it <is> a halting decider, any reversal on
>> this can only be construed as deception.
>
> Don't be silly. You clearly have no idea what I was saying and you
> obviously don't care either or you would ask me.
>

On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Truism:
>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>
> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
> decider.

Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
input is an input that never halts.

A liar or a very stupid person might say that the above two are different.

>>> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>
> I take it you agree with a, b and c since you make no comment about
> them. If you do not agree, you need to say which ones you disagree
> with.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]

<srednU77RdHvPr_8nZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20140&group=comp.theory#20140

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:20:18 -0500
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ double-talk "rebuttal" ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <uoudnbh9kIUTXYL8nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <0WpUI.59077$Nc1.2096@fx34.iad> <87wnodilmx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <ae-dnRm7Xc6LHb_8nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87a6l9i9sy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:20:17 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87a6l9i9sy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <srednU77RdHvPr_8nZ2dnUU7-eGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 40
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Bu5jMypzLPHgd5ujNhlJPGMUs9Ckwn1WWmfHoDJV9C4ghl4J/kd9LaH3a77bF61Xmhb02u8Dqqkwd6k!2hdgc5rYipIhuSxMatHsG2vfk7V2Z4F+l/nGUutIO/MJfcjo2h55rIfdjfQGZAe9XIRyfae4U9pj!WUA=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3122
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:20 UTC

On 8/22/2021 2:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 8/22/2021 9:45 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>>> I don't really know what PO thinks I meant by these words, but since you
>>> are sane and knowledgeable and you think I made a mistake, my words can
>>> obviously be misunderstood. What did you think I was saying?
>>
>> While a simulating halt decider is...
>
> You do realise I was not asking you, yes?
>

The executed instances of H(P,P) are distinctly different computations
than the simulated instances in that the executed instances are not
under the dominion of a halt decider. It is this difference that enables
them to have different behavior.

// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
P((u32)P);
}

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<874kbhi7x8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20141&group=comp.theory#20141

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 20:41:23 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <874kbhi7x8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WKmdnbc68LLPBb_8nZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv1i9zb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<ANidndCeG5zIP7_8nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="26261"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Ohx635boWBpbsvqvxIstk0ZHna4FpfU8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZvtGWR+kW6GfwRSrclK+WxJAKfA=
sha1:dYW7mkiEt0U3lkSC9QP3hxim44s=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.20832f60e6754aeb4e8b.20210822204123BST.874kbhi7x8.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:41 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 8/22/2021 1:56 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> The executed instances of H(P,P) are distinctly different
>>> computations...
>> More deflection. Here's why you are wrong:
>> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>> Which of these facts do you deny?
>
> So in other words you are saying that a computation that can be and is
> aborted is exactly the same as a computation that cannot be and is not
> aborted?

No, I am not saying that. Which of a, b or c do you deny?

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<87y28tgt3w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20142&group=comp.theory#20142

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 20:46:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <87y28tgt3w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czq5i9u0.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<srednU_7RdGxPr_8nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8218161baa89b4ebb00b95f1a06fab5e";
logging-data="26261"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Xv2TadiwSkY7TEHK1zz7XyRgXibhsGqk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yfq+nXGa1yss0J9tKXxCrVUrBrM=
sha1:HH9vG1yY/+ScoOo09ZvyQdq8PkM=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.1d4d20ec0a71bfbb8d4e.20210822204643BST.87y28tgt3w.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:46 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
(anything to avoid addressing the incontrovertible facts)

> On 8/22/2021 2:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>>>> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>>
>> I take it you agree with a, b and c since you make no comment about
>> them. If you do not agree, you need to say which ones you disagree
>> with.

You have not said which of a, b or c you deny. I don't want to put
words in your mouth (what sort of person would do that, eh?) but I will
have to assume you agree with them all if you don't say.

--
Ben.

Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H? [ distinct computations ]

<OTxUI.35754$kr4.29683@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=20143&group=comp.theory#20143

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: How do we know H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input
to H? [ distinct computations ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <3YOdnecvDsA5Q4r8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsv4xicb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JZidnd1WvP9TV4L8nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y28vx32t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_oydnQU9zKCQh738nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7fjwyct.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RcednbQE8v5Asr38nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgtbvcbz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o_Sdnbtvhb5Nzr38nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilzzuh9o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9aOdnfqu_8aSYr38nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmu6topr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <-4udnWbHqo5oHLz8nZ2dnUU7-TfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamtmoh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <z--dnWg_LPquF7z8nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87eeamjmkl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <y9WdnbWVT-m0Ubz8nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735r1k0p0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TIidnUnAVPdb9L_8nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1elihh9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <c9ydnS0MB5tqG7_8nZ2dnUU7-R_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czq5i9u0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <srednU_7RdGxPr_8nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <srednU_7RdGxPr_8nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <OTxUI.35754$kr4.29683@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 15:50:04 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3884
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 Aug 2021 19:50 UTC

On 8/22/21 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2021 2:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> You already agreed that it <is> a halting decider, any reversal on
>>> this can only be construed as deception.
>>
>> Don't be silly.  You clearly have no idea what I was saying and you
>> obviously don't care either or you would ask me.
>>
>
> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Truism:
>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops
>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution.
>>
>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting
>> decider.
>
> Simulating Halt Decider Theorem (Olcott 2020):
> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that any input that never
> halts unless the simulating halt decider aborts its simulation of this
> input is an input that never halts.

FALSE, UNSOUND.

The right answer for ANY Halt Decider is based on the behavior (Will it
halt in some finite number of steps or never halt given an unbounded
number of steps) of the machine/input that was given as a representation
to it as the deciders input.

PERIOD. DEFINITION.

H^(<H^>) is admitted Halting. Thus the right answer for H(<H^>,<H^>) is
Halting, and the given non-halting answer is BY DEFINITION wrong.

>
> A liar or a very stupid person might say that the above two are different.

No, A Liar is someone who claims something to be true that isn't, like
that different types of Halt Deciders have different criteria.

LIAR! or are you just a very stupid person who can't tell the difference?

>
>>>> a. The string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes the computation of your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>> b. Your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>> c. Your H rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ when it should accept it.
>>
>> I take it you agree with a, b and c since you make no comment about
>> them.  If you do not agree, you need to say which ones you disagree
>> with.
>>
>
>

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor