Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"America is a stronger nation for the ACLU's uncompromising effort." -- President John F. Kennedy


devel / comp.theory / Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Will Peter stop lying? ]

SubjectAuthor
* Category errorMr Flibble
+* Category errorolcott
|`* Category errorRichard Damon
| `* Category errorolcott
|  `* Category errorRichard Damon
|   `* Category errorolcott
|    `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|     `* Category errorolcott
|      `* Category errorRichard Damon
|       +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|       |`* Category errorolcott
|       | `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|       |  +- Category errorRichard Damon
|       |  `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   +* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   |`* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | +* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   | |`* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | | `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]André G. Isaak
|       |   | |  `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   | `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |  `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |   `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |    `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |     `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   |      `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |   |       `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |   `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |    `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |     `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |      `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |       `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       |        `* Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]olcott
|       |         `- Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ]Richard Damon
|       `* Category errorolcott
|        +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |`* Category errorolcott
|        | `* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |  `* Category errorolcott
|        |   +* Category errorAndré G. Isaak
|        |   |`- Category errorolcott
|        |   `* Category errorRichard Damon
|        |    `* Category errorolcott
|        |     `* Category errorRichard Damon
|        |      `* Category errorolcott
|        |       `- Category errorRichard Damon
|        `- Category errorRichard Damon
+* Category errorwij
|`* Category errorMr Flibble
| `- Category errorolcott
`* Category errorMikko
 `* Category errorolcott
  +* Category errorRichard Damon
  |`* Category errorolcott
  | `- Category errorRichard Damon
  `* Category errorBen
   +* Category errorolcott
   |+- Category errorRichard Damon
   |`- Category errorBen
   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
    +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
    `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
     `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Malcolm McLean
      | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      |  `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Malcolm McLean
      |   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
      |    `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
      `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
       `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
        +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
        `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben
         `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]olcott
          +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Richard Damon
          +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |+- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Richard Damon
          |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Ben
          | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)olcott
          |  +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Richard Damon
          |  `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words)Ben
          |   `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          |    +- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Richard Damon
          |    `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Ben
          |     +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          |     |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)Ben
          |     | `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Ben
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  |||+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  |||| `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  ||||  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Richard Damon
          |     |  |||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Malcolm McLean
          |     |  ||| `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |||  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[Richard Damon
          |     |  ||`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Ben
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |+* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  |`* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[olcott
          |     |  `- Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]Richard Damon
          |     `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)olcott
          +* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Python
          `* Category error [ HEAD GAMES ]Ben

Pages:123456789101112
Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]

<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32869&group=comp.theory#32869

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx46.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Ben is a Liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.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 May 2022 00:05:55 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7113
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 04:05 UTC

On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the
>>>>>>>>>>>> one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one
>>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation we can see that the correctly emulated input
>>>>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) would never reach its final state at machine
>>>>>>>>>>> address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one simulation
>>>>>>>>> and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of a
>>>>>>>> square circle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show when
>>>>>>> H simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the input
>>>>>>> to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't
>>>>>>> possibly exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>>>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>> simulates a
>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape
>>>>> and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states that
>>>> the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that second UTM
>>>> simulates in its own processing.
>>>>
>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that it
>>>> has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT part of the
>>>> trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of its
>>> own data.
>>
>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part of the
>> trace generated by that UTM.
>
> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a part of
> the same nested process.

So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual
simulated.

Since it is simulating a call to H, that means it needs to simulate the
code IN H, not the code that this H is simulating.

DEFINITIONS. (Which you seem to have problems with).

>
>>
>> Try it.
>>
>> Write a UTM that takes as input the representation of a machine and
>> its tape, and generates at the end a representation of the final state
>> f the machine, the represntation of the final tape of that computation
>> and a trace of the execution it performed, and do the experement.
>>
>> The data from the second level UTM will be in the representation of
>> the output tape (the output of the second UTM), NOT the section of the
>> tape with the trace of the execution.
>>
>> This shows that this second level trace isn't part of the first level
>> trace, as you want to claim.
>>
>> You just don't understand how it works, and get the level os
>> execution/simulation confused.
>>
>>>
>>>> Finish your TM simulator, and design (or look up) a UTM and try it.
>>>>
>>>> Try to find the execution trace generated by the second UTM actually
>>>> in the execution trace of the first UTM, it isn't there, because the
>>>> first UTM never actually did that. All you will see is the steps the
>>>> second UTM went through to simulate its input.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone here (including you) know that is a ridiculously stupid
>>>>>>> thing to say. What is you motive for saying these ridiculously
>>>>>>> stupid things ?
>>>>>>> Are you tying to announce to the world that you are a total
>>>>>>> numbskull?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, ON YOUR PART. It is stupid to suggest that it is correct to
>>>>>> mix the execution trace of different execution contexts as if they
>>>>>> were a single context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you understand that, you might be able to see your error.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]

<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32870&group=comp.theory#32870

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 00:02:54 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 00:02:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Ben is a Liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 151
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Refj65+v3ndUuG+Owx9yDsEowMs6wSA1S6WwCYm2TOFDVoE0kzwnQ9AYqSPpLXSSP/ZhTfmC+UV0FV3!NymE2fK75MBTLa5dm5adJ2N8yjxROhRp+QgkK7Mg5B1zfAXbuSpptXj6DcyQ95537lGw3gUpmBM=
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: 7987
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 05:02 UTC

On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one
>>>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation we can see that the correctly emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would never reach its final state at machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one simulation
>>>>>>>>>> and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of
>>>>>>>>> a square circle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show
>>>>>>>> when H simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the
>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle"
>>>>>>>> can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>>>>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape
>>>>>> and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states that
>>>>> the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that second UTM
>>>>> simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that it
>>>>> has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT part of the
>>>>> trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of its
>>>> own data.
>>>
>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part of the
>>> trace generated by that UTM.
>>
>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a part
>> of the same nested process.
>
> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual
> simulated.
>

There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated. Operating
system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves the user code such
as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines execution trace of the two
level simulation of the input to H(P,P)

> Since it is simulating a call to H, that means it needs to simulate the
> code IN H, not the code that this H is simulating.
>
> DEFINITIONS. (Which you seem to have problems with).
>
>>
>>>
>>> Try it.
>>>
>>> Write a UTM that takes as input the representation of a machine and
>>> its tape, and generates at the end a representation of the final
>>> state f the machine, the represntation of the final tape of that
>>> computation and a trace of the execution it performed, and do the
>>> experement.
>>>
>>> The data from the second level UTM will be in the representation of
>>> the output tape (the output of the second UTM), NOT the section of
>>> the tape with the trace of the execution.
>>>
>>> This shows that this second level trace isn't part of the first level
>>> trace, as you want to claim.
>>>
>>> You just don't understand how it works, and get the level os
>>> execution/simulation confused.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Finish your TM simulator, and design (or look up) a UTM and try it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to find the execution trace generated by the second UTM
>>>>> actually in the execution trace of the first UTM, it isn't there,
>>>>> because the first UTM never actually did that. All you will see is
>>>>> the steps the second UTM went through to simulate its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone here (including you) know that is a ridiculously stupid
>>>>>>>> thing to say. What is you motive for saying these ridiculously
>>>>>>>> stupid things ?
>>>>>>>> Are you tying to announce to the world that you are a total
>>>>>>>> numbskull?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, ON YOUR PART. It is stupid to suggest that it is correct to
>>>>>>> mix the execution trace of different execution contexts as if
>>>>>>> they were a single context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you understand that, you might be able to see your error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Category error

<87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32871&group=comp.theory#32871

 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)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Category error
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 10:52:03 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <874k1l8h4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Y7idnfd_v--hARv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8dd4c7bdaf79436ff5f1179abe81344f";
logging-data="23179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NwAfc5gykPkELYCt9bO3Bq0F4WZVjhxQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W35DOhjzixSWSeT8ugFQ41e3k08=
sha1:waQPuS6EXm9uqDyzbZNzkW96rmQ=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.850365edb6bfba6144b8.20220522105203BST.87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sun, 22 May 2022 09:52 UTC

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

If you respond to thread calling me a liar, could I ask you to consider
changing the subject line?

(All the additions -- "HEAD GAMES", "smart honest people would agree"
and "Ben is a Liar" are insults intended to goad people into continuing
the conversation, but calling me a sadistic liar is, IMO, beyond the
pale.)

--
Ben.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]

<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32872&group=comp.theory#32872

 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!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx44.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Ben is a Liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.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 May 2022 07:06:04 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8107
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 11:06 UTC

On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation we can see that the correctly emulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would never reach its final state at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of
>>>>>>>>>> a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show
>>>>>>>>> when H simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the
>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle"
>>>>>>>>> can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>>>>>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape
>>>>>>> and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states that
>>>>>> the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that second
>>>>>> UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that it
>>>>>> has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT part of the
>>>>>> trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of its
>>>>> own data.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part of
>>>> the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>
>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a part
>>> of the same nested process.
>>
>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual
>> simulated.
>>
>
> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated. Operating
> system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves the user code such
> as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines execution trace of the two
> level simulation of the input to H(P,P)

No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top level
emulator, its emulator is.

Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that the
second level code is emulated by the same emulation process that the
first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic is still built
on a lie).

>
>> Since it is simulating a call to H, that means it needs to simulate
>> the code IN H, not the code that this H is simulating.
>>
>> DEFINITIONS. (Which you seem to have problems with).
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try it.
>>>>
>>>> Write a UTM that takes as input the representation of a machine and
>>>> its tape, and generates at the end a representation of the final
>>>> state f the machine, the represntation of the final tape of that
>>>> computation and a trace of the execution it performed, and do the
>>>> experement.
>>>>
>>>> The data from the second level UTM will be in the representation of
>>>> the output tape (the output of the second UTM), NOT the section of
>>>> the tape with the trace of the execution.
>>>>
>>>> This shows that this second level trace isn't part of the first
>>>> level trace, as you want to claim.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't understand how it works, and get the level os
>>>> execution/simulation confused.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Finish your TM simulator, and design (or look up) a UTM and try it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to find the execution trace generated by the second UTM
>>>>>> actually in the execution trace of the first UTM, it isn't there,
>>>>>> because the first UTM never actually did that. All you will see is
>>>>>> the steps the second UTM went through to simulate its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone here (including you) know that is a ridiculously
>>>>>>>>> stupid thing to say. What is you motive for saying these
>>>>>>>>> ridiculously stupid things ?
>>>>>>>>> Are you tying to announce to the world that you are a total
>>>>>>>>> numbskull?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, ON YOUR PART. It is stupid to suggest that it is correct to
>>>>>>>> mix the execution trace of different execution contexts as if
>>>>>>>> they were a single context.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you understand that, you might be able to see your error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ]

<1a7e2fea-5412-4d40-b701-d37d53702adan@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32873&group=comp.theory#32873

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:58b4:0:b0:461:ca02:7577 with SMTP id ea20-20020ad458b4000000b00461ca027577mr13699132qvb.71.1653220288080;
Sun, 22 May 2022 04:51:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9849:0:b0:64b:2de4:67c8 with SMTP id
k9-20020a259849000000b0064b2de467c8mr16840037ybo.607.1653220287876; Sun, 22
May 2022 04:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 04:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:b0c3:6ec:f6d:177;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:b0c3:6ec:f6d:177
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <87a6bd91n1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RuGdnaqBNspG-xv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <874k1l8h4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Y7idnfd_v--hARv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad> <I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad> <NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad> <h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1a7e2fea-5412-4d40-b701-d37d53702adan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Ben is a Liar ]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:51:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 4529
 by: Malcolm McLean - Sun, 22 May 2022 11:51 UTC

On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 03:48:47 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated correctly
> >>>>>>>> proving
> >>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the one
> >>>>>>> case you
> >>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because P(P) halts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace of the
> >>>>>> input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested
> >>>>>> emulation we can see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
> >>>>>> would never reach its final state at machine address [0000136c].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
> >>>>> independent execution units.
> >>>>>
> >>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically incompetent
> >>>> to provide the execution trace of one simulation and one nested
> >>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P).
> >>>
> >>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of a
> >>> square circle.
> >>
> >>
> >> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show when H
> >> simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the input to
> >> H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't possibly
> >> exist?
> >
> > The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
> >
> > The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
> > computers or programs actually work.
> >
> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that simulates a
> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape and
> the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>
There's only one physical tape.
But you haven't written a UTM yet. You don't know how the tape of a UTM
running another UTM is laid out.

Re: Category error

<vpKdnaLyoIqY0Bf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32875&group=comp.theory#32875

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 09:47:33 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 09:47:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <874k1l8h4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Y7idnfd_v--hARv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vpKdnaLyoIqY0Bf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 34
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vvE+sYfNbX71W+EVQaDj/UMFIeQg40J8XiXvvZbI265/dbjA44EVmZZtZK1AhGF+EiSbjbvizk5ZyDp!Ce03S712rj8JFZTAiGqqDOddfY346f0Zv1ruW5qQe4h2lYAW8bmh3luxRZUygaAMmMjoOwbEwTc=
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: 3217
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 14:47 UTC

On 5/22/2022 4:52 AM, Ben wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
> If you respond to thread calling me a liar, could I ask you to consider
> changing the subject line?
>
> (All the additions -- "HEAD GAMES", "smart honest people would agree"
> and "Ben is a Liar" are insults intended to goad people into continuing
> the conversation, but calling me a sadistic liar is, IMO, beyond the
> pale.)
>

I really seems to be an accurate assessment to me.
If you do the very best that you can to make sure to acknowledge that
facts are true or provide the details that you fail to understand of my
proof of key facts I will change my assessment.

It is the case that the C function H does correctly determine that the C
function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly
emulated by H. If you deny this fact you are still a sadistic liar
playing head games.

If you say that you do not understand how I proved that this is true and
point out the gaps in your understanding of key points that I have made
then my assessment changes.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben will stop being a liar? ]

<C66dnWB_Bbj50xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32876&group=comp.theory#32876

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 09:53:24 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 09:53:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Ben will stop being a liar? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <874k1l8h4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Y7idnfd_v--hARv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1a7e2fea-5412-4d40-b701-d37d53702adan@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <1a7e2fea-5412-4d40-b701-d37d53702adan@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <C66dnWB_Bbj50xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4PMYL1wXyCnUFZ88jPQr6+VeFZTT75/dzjXvHUVV7U9Rz5kTGenwjcyAeLTFLGoeWFfO2uxitBMY541!7D74TTvCzlaA7HABIO9Dvk7bbxQjEZ82hjQuZyI/0+0z0LpmCKd/B3wYTVkDPY/+HU6Aj5yV5r8=
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: 4981
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 14:53 UTC

On 5/22/2022 6:51 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 03:48:47 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated correctly
>>>>>>>>>> proving
>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the one
>>>>>>>>> case you
>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace of the
>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested
>>>>>>>> emulation we can see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>> would never reach its final state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically incompetent
>>>>>> to provide the execution trace of one simulation and one nested
>>>>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of a
>>>>> square circle.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show when H
>>>> simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the input to
>>>> H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't possibly
>>>> exist?
>>>
>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>
>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>
>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that simulates a
>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape and
>> the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>
> There's only one physical tape.
> But you haven't written a UTM yet. You don't know how the tape of a UTM
> running another UTM is laid out.

I don't need to know this. I only need to know that all of the execution
traces of all of the inputs are somewhere on the master UTM tape. I am
never going to write a hundred million page long UTM that does the same
thing as my C function.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Will Ben stop lying? ]

<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32877&group=comp.theory#32877

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 09:57:09 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 09:57:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Will Ben stop lying? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 171
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-P1O85v7IF+qSiXFbu6ojZGccit71TDREmdcyxIZmnFNRTaEO+6/eiml9N/x6BVv+01MuT/cgtSP+I/u!El1PYC722vrNz6HZ6JPa1dDgpPPuFhgo5h43UtB36yUv8/DELwg32N4Z2aq5cm9JeBt/lPkW5Ww=
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: 8906
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 14:57 UTC

On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and one nested emulation we can see that the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a
>>>>>>>>>>> of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show
>>>>>>>>>> when H simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the
>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square
>>>>>>>>>> circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>>>>>>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's
>>>>>>>> tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states that
>>>>>>> the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that second
>>>>>>> UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that it
>>>>>>> has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT part of the
>>>>>>> trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of its
>>>>>> own data.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part of
>>>>> the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>
>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a
>>>> part of the same nested process.
>>>
>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual
>>> simulated.
>>>
>>
>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves the
>> user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines execution
>> trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>
> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top level
> emulator, its emulator is.
>
> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that the
> second level code is emulated by the same emulation process that the
> first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic is still built
> on a lie).
>

If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far too
stupid to evaluate my work.

>
>>
>>> Since it is simulating a call to H, that means it needs to simulate
>>> the code IN H, not the code that this H is simulating.
>>>
>>> DEFINITIONS. (Which you seem to have problems with).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Write a UTM that takes as input the representation of a machine and
>>>>> its tape, and generates at the end a representation of the final
>>>>> state f the machine, the represntation of the final tape of that
>>>>> computation and a trace of the execution it performed, and do the
>>>>> experement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The data from the second level UTM will be in the representation of
>>>>> the output tape (the output of the second UTM), NOT the section of
>>>>> the tape with the trace of the execution.
>>>>>
>>>>> This shows that this second level trace isn't part of the first
>>>>> level trace, as you want to claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't understand how it works, and get the level os
>>>>> execution/simulation confused.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finish your TM simulator, and design (or look up) a UTM and try it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to find the execution trace generated by the second UTM
>>>>>>> actually in the execution trace of the first UTM, it isn't there,
>>>>>>> because the first UTM never actually did that. All you will see
>>>>>>> is the steps the second UTM went through to simulate its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone here (including you) know that is a ridiculously
>>>>>>>>>> stupid thing to say. What is you motive for saying these
>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously stupid things ?
>>>>>>>>>> Are you tying to announce to the world that you are a total
>>>>>>>>>> numbskull?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, ON YOUR PART. It is stupid to suggest that it is correct
>>>>>>>>> to mix the execution trace of different execution contexts as
>>>>>>>>> if they were a single context.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you understand that, you might be able to see your error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Will Peter stop lying? ]

<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32878&group=comp.theory#32878

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx47.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Will Peter stop lying? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.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 May 2022 12:21:53 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9745
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:21 UTC

On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and one nested emulation we can see that the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show
>>>>>>>>>>> when H simulates its input, yet another execution trace of
>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square
>>>>>>>>>>> circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the
>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know
>>>>>>>>>> how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's
>>>>>>>>> tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states
>>>>>>>> that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that
>>>>>>>> second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that
>>>>>>>> it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT part of
>>>>>>>> the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of
>>>>>>> its own data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part of
>>>>>> the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a
>>>>> part of the same nested process.
>>>>
>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual
>>>> simulated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves the
>>> user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines execution
>>> trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>
>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top
>> level emulator, its emulator is.
>>
>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that the
>> second level code is emulated by the same emulation process that the
>> first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic is still
>> built on a lie).
>>
>
> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far too
> stupid to evaluate my work.

Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite
recursion wneh the top level doesn't?

Or is it that it doesn't, but H looks at the trace wrong and THINK that
it will, so it aborts it?

Note also, the question isn't does the copy of H called by P see the
same execution trace as the copy of H making the decision, but why does
the copy making the decision see the trace generated by the copy it is
simulating instead of seeing it simulating that simulator.

The ONLY answer is you are LYING about what H does. My guess is that H
isn't actually an independent computation but all the copies interact
and H is actually incapable is actually simulating a copy of itself.

This means that it is NOT the computation equivalent of an actual Turing
Machine.

One hint about this is that the input isn't in a distinct
"address space" from the code of H. (which actually introduces a
recursion that isn't in the original problem, which is part of your
problem).

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Since it is simulating a call to H, that means it needs to simulate
>>>> the code IN H, not the code that this H is simulating.
>>>>
>>>> DEFINITIONS. (Which you seem to have problems with).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Write a UTM that takes as input the representation of a machine
>>>>>> and its tape, and generates at the end a representation of the
>>>>>> final state f the machine, the represntation of the final tape of
>>>>>> that computation and a trace of the execution it performed, and do
>>>>>> the experement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The data from the second level UTM will be in the representation
>>>>>> of the output tape (the output of the second UTM), NOT the section
>>>>>> of the tape with the trace of the execution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This shows that this second level trace isn't part of the first
>>>>>> level trace, as you want to claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just don't understand how it works, and get the level os
>>>>>> execution/simulation confused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finish your TM simulator, and design (or look up) a UTM and try it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to find the execution trace generated by the second UTM
>>>>>>>> actually in the execution trace of the first UTM, it isn't
>>>>>>>> there, because the first UTM never actually did that. All you
>>>>>>>> will see is the steps the second UTM went through to simulate
>>>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone here (including you) know that is a ridiculously
>>>>>>>>>>> stupid thing to say. What is you motive for saying these
>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculously stupid things ?
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you tying to announce to the world that you are a total
>>>>>>>>>>> numbskull?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, ON YOUR PART. It is stupid to suggest that it is correct
>>>>>>>>>> to mix the execution trace of different execution contexts as
>>>>>>>>>> if they were a single context.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you understand that, you might be able to see your error.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ when will Peter stop being a liar? ]

<hwtiK.2141$lut9.32@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32879&group=comp.theory#32879

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
when will Peter stop being a liar? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1a7e2fea-5412-4d40-b701-d37d53702adan@googlegroups.com>
<C66dnWB_Bbj50xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <C66dnWB_Bbj50xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <hwtiK.2141$lut9.32@fx99.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 May 2022 12:27:56 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4918
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:27 UTC

On 5/22/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 6:51 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 03:48:47 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> proving
>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the one
>>>>>>>>>> case you
>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because P(P)
>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace of the
>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested
>>>>>>>>> emulation we can see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> would never reach its final state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically incompetent
>>>>>>> to provide the execution trace of one simulation and one nested
>>>>>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of a
>>>>>> square circle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show when H
>>>>> simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the input to
>>>>> H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't possibly
>>>>> exist?
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>>
>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>>
>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that simulates a
>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape and
>>> the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>
>> There's only one physical tape.
>> But you haven't written a UTM yet. You don't know how the tape of a UTM
>> running another UTM is laid out.
>
> I don't need to know this. I only need to know that all of the execution
> traces of all of the inputs are somewhere on the master UTM tape. I am
> never going to write a hundred million page long UTM that does the same
> thing as my C function.
>

But you are making claims about how it works, if you don't know how it
works how can you make that claim?

I guess that just shows that you will speak authoritatively on things
that you don't know anything abuot.

That just shows you are a pathological liar.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Will Peter stop lying? ]

<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32880&group=comp.theory#32880

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:31:18 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:31:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Will Peter stop lying? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 121
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Y3C+XjzY7/8NRGWwxSkyuUC68+wNatZRYeMCdK1C0Dmjb6w5ox+437YetLXTinRRDmh22zZuIICSxmL!vJWJl793Mr+bMRhKylMiDDjGY/ubGRSsF7X+VnAd/RJ+Zscu0zSZ67RdqiJ8NH9CsLvdU95dfaQ=
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: 7412
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:31 UTC

On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and one nested emulation we can see that the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show
>>>>>>>>>>>> when H simulates its input, yet another execution trace of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square
>>>>>>>>>>>> circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the
>>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know
>>>>>>>>>>> how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's
>>>>>>>>>> tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states
>>>>>>>>> that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that
>>>>>>>>> second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that
>>>>>>>>> it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT part of
>>>>>>>>> the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of
>>>>>>>> its own data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part of
>>>>>>> the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a
>>>>>> part of the same nested process.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual
>>>>> simulated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves the
>>>> user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines execution
>>>> trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>
>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top
>>> level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>
>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that the
>>> second level code is emulated by the same emulation process that the
>>> first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic is still
>>> built on a lie).
>>>
>>
>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
>> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far too
>> stupid to evaluate my work.
>
> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite
> recursion wneh the top level doesn't?

It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)
never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively proving that it
never halts.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ when will Peter stop being a liar? ]

<e6OdnZyq3P6C-xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32882&group=comp.theory#32882

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:34:39 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:34:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
when will Peter stop being a liar? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1a7e2fea-5412-4d40-b701-d37d53702adan@googlegroups.com>
<C66dnWB_Bbj50xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <hwtiK.2141$lut9.32@fx99.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <hwtiK.2141$lut9.32@fx99.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <e6OdnZyq3P6C-xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 89
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-yYAYEuTfokO5NPm24hMMH3aN2hhZznL47fv26gO22kkpJvA/eBNe3dW7iwPe6fQH08Q6GgL1srJImzk!mfbcrGrjGtLG47JIyz30EhEYAoUR08nwEV1sewIOGUFvzy4VOxD5XT2TlOYr/GmD1UmFobRq3SY=
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: 5759
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:34 UTC

On 5/22/2022 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/22/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 6:51 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 03:48:47 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> proving
>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the one
>>>>>>>>>>> case you
>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested
>>>>>>>>>> emulation we can see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its final state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically incompetent
>>>>>>>> to provide the execution trace of one simulation and one nested
>>>>>>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of a
>>>>>>> square circle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show when H
>>>>>> simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the input to
>>>>>> H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't possibly
>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>
>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that simulates a
>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape and
>>>> the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>
>>> There's only one physical tape.
>>> But you haven't written a UTM yet. You don't know how the tape of a UTM
>>> running another UTM is laid out.
>>
>> I don't need to know this. I only need to know that all of the
>> execution traces of all of the inputs are somewhere on the master UTM
>> tape. I am never going to write a hundred million page long UTM that
>> does the same thing as my C function.
>>
>
> But you are making claims about how it works, if you don't know how it
> works how can you make that claim?
>

I don't have to make claims about how it works.
I only need these two claims:

(1) The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last
instruction thus never halts. VERIFIED FACT

(2) Therefore when H(P,P) returns 0 it is correct. SOUND DEDUCTION

> I guess that just shows that you will speak authoritatively on things
> that you don't know anything abuot.
>
> That just shows you are a pathological liar.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Category error

<2DtiK.4007$45E8.973@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32883&group=comp.theory#32883

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx47.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <874k1l8h4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Y7idnfd_v--hARv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vpKdnaLyoIqY0Bf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <vpKdnaLyoIqY0Bf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <2DtiK.4007$45E8.973@fx47.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 May 2022 12:35:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3611
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:35 UTC

On 5/22/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 4:52 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>> If you respond to thread calling me a liar, could I ask you to consider
>> changing the subject line?
>>
>> (All the additions -- "HEAD GAMES", "smart honest people would agree"
>> and "Ben is a Liar" are insults intended to goad people into continuing
>> the conversation, but calling me a sadistic liar is, IMO, beyond the
>> pale.)
>>
>
> I really seems to be an accurate assessment to me.
> If you do the very best that you can to make sure to acknowledge that
> facts are true or provide the details that you fail to understand of my
> proof of key facts I will change my assessment.
>
> It is the case that the C function H does correctly determine that the C
> function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly
> emulated by H. If you deny this fact you are still a sadistic liar
> playing head games.

But only if H never returns an answer. Since you stipulated that H(P,P)
returns the value of 0 (you can't stipulate that this answer is
correct), then we KNOW that P(P) will halt, because H INCORRECTLY aborts
its simulation of P,P and decides it is non-halting.

>
> If you say that you do not understand how I proved that this is true and
> point out the gaps in your understanding of key points that I have made
> then my assessment changes.
>

Since you have PROVED your own ignorance, who cares about what you think
of people.

If you REALLY though you were correct, you would be either submitting
the paper or finding people that "understand" what you are saying to
help you improve.

The fact that you keep on arguing with people who you think don't
understand you is that you know that your ideas really are
non-understandable because they are just wrong, and you are trying to
find a way to hide your errors.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Will Peter stop lying? ]

<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32885&group=comp.theory#32885

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Will Peter stop lying? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.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 May 2022 12:40:46 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7766
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:40 UTC

On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and one nested emulation we can see that the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> show when H simulates its input, yet another execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a square circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>> how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's
>>>>>>>>>>> tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states
>>>>>>>>>> that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that
>>>>>>>>>> second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that
>>>>>>>>>> it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT part
>>>>>>>>>> of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of
>>>>>>>>> its own data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part
>>>>>>>> of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a
>>>>>>> part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual
>>>>>> simulated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves the
>>>>> user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines
>>>>> execution trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>
>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top
>>>> level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that the
>>>> second level code is emulated by the same emulation process that the
>>>> first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic is still
>>>> built on a lie).
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
>>> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far too
>>> stupid to evaluate my work.
>>
>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite
>> recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>
> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)
> never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively proving that it
> never halts.
>

The only machine that you have shown that does a correct simulation is
the version that never aborts. That version fails to answer the
question, so fails to be a halt decider.

Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer changes P
into a Halting Compuation.

The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H, so if H
aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't, then it is
wrong for not answering.

You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the basics
of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep on trying to
define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm, so can't actually be
written.

Re: Category error

<29-dndl0aZ0l-hf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32886&group=comp.theory#32886

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:41:28 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:41:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <874k1l8h4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Y7idnfd_v--hARv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vpKdnaLyoIqY0Bf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2DtiK.4007$45E8.973@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <2DtiK.4007$45E8.973@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <29-dndl0aZ0l-hf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-P43FWB08G9+GgtUP94r0K12JXaDhcB3HxU1hruZ7UzZIO3pTDcuoAQAKiSavhZ9w0ceB4wZfx8abV58!u565ZmEfQN1se6fFiukTmAllCh0pN0GCKtJwpwPO8MhGl0Ny+tWytoAXig3zF+A7lmPfwKWOeuM=
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: 4749
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:41 UTC

On 5/22/2022 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/22/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 4:52 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>
>>> If you respond to thread calling me a liar, could I ask you to consider
>>> changing the subject line?
>>>
>>> (All the additions -- "HEAD GAMES", "smart honest people would agree"
>>> and "Ben is a Liar" are insults intended to goad people into continuing
>>> the conversation, but calling me a sadistic liar is, IMO, beyond the
>>> pale.)
>>>
>>
>> I really seems to be an accurate assessment to me.
>> If you do the very best that you can to make sure to acknowledge that
>> facts are true or provide the details that you fail to understand of
>> my proof of key facts I will change my assessment.
>>
>> It is the case that the C function H does correctly determine that the
>> C function named P would never reach its last instruction when
>> correctly emulated by H. If you deny this fact you are still a
>> sadistic liar playing head games.
>
> But only if H never returns an answer. Since you stipulated that H(P,P)
> returns the value of 0 (you can't stipulate that this answer is
> correct), then we KNOW that P(P) will halt, because H INCORRECTLY aborts
> its simulation of P,P and decides it is non-halting.
>
>
>>
>> If you say that you do not understand how I proved that this is true
>> and point out the gaps in your understanding of key points that I have
>> made then my assessment changes.
>>
>
> Since you have PROVED your own ignorance, who cares about what you think
> of people.
>
> If you REALLY though you were correct, you would be either submitting
> the paper or finding people that "understand" what you are saying to
> help you improve.
>

It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
instruction when correctly emulated by H.

Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

> The fact that you keep on arguing with people who you think don't
> understand you is that you know that your ideas really are
> non-understandable because they are just wrong, and you are trying to
> find a way to hide your errors.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? ]

<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32887&group=comp.theory#32887

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:42:49 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 11:42:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 154
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-yIOA4+KyDsSSD9aUZS9rgpQwPTQi+gjPZqs4f1FRpJMNZKWUct8/VLkD7D7tbu5/QltIY6vopwt1BPg!LKAAwacYFw4p7X+qiPEHOrSeD3qfgctLMt8GXycIZvKoy0jQZ8Gc5EgbHE3ex7gh0gjWp/m26/4=
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: 9003
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 16:42 UTC

On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and one nested emulation we can see that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated input to H(P,P) would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and one nested simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show when H simulates its input, yet another execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "like a square circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's
>>>>>>>>>>>> tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states
>>>>>>>>>>> that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that
>>>>>>>>>>> second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states
>>>>>>>>>>> that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT
>>>>>>>>>>> part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of
>>>>>>>>>> its own data.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part
>>>>>>>>> of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a
>>>>>>>> part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator
>>>>>>> actual simulated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>>>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves
>>>>>> the user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines
>>>>>> execution trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top
>>>>> level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that the
>>>>> second level code is emulated by the same emulation process that
>>>>> the first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic is
>>>>> still built on a lie).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
>>>> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far too
>>>> stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>
>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite
>>> recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>
>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to
>> H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively proving
>> that it never halts.
>>
>
> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct simulation is
> the version that never aborts. That version fails to answer the
> question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>
> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer changes P
> into a Halting Compuation.
>
> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H, so if H
> aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't, then it is
> wrong for not answering.
>
> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the basics
> of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep on trying to
> define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm, so can't actually be
> written.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? ]

<xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32890&group=comp.theory#32890

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx40.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.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 May 2022 13:36:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9271
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 17:36 UTC

On 5/22/22 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and one nested emulation we can see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correctly emulated input to H(P,P) would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent to provide the execution trace of one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and one nested simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show when H simulates its input, yet another execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "like a square circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM's tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states
>>>>>>>>>>>> that second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states
>>>>>>>>>>>> that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part
>>>>>>>>>>> of its own data.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part
>>>>>>>>>> of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is
>>>>>>>>> a part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator
>>>>>>>> actual simulated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>>>>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves
>>>>>>> the user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines
>>>>>>> execution trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top
>>>>>> level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that
>>>>>> the second level code is emulated by the same emulation process
>>>>>> that the first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic
>>>>>> is still built on a lie).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
>>>>> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far
>>>>> too stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite
>>>> recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to
>>> H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively proving
>>> that it never halts.
>>>
>>
>> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct simulation is
>> the version that never aborts. That version fails to answer the
>> question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>>
>> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer changes
>> P into a Halting Compuation.
>>
>> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H, so if
>> H aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't, then it is
>> wrong for not answering.
>>
>> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the
>> basics of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep on
>> trying to define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm, so can't
>> actually be written.
>>
>
>
>
> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
> instruction when correctly emulated by H.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ when will Peter stop being a liar? ]

<oEuiK.50$921.10@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32891&group=comp.theory#32891

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[
when will Peter stop being a liar? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<1a7e2fea-5412-4d40-b701-d37d53702adan@googlegroups.com>
<C66dnWB_Bbj50xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <hwtiK.2141$lut9.32@fx99.iad>
<e6OdnZyq3P6C-xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <e6OdnZyq3P6C-xf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <oEuiK.50$921.10@fx37.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 May 2022 13:44:48 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6637
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 17:44 UTC

On 5/22/22 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/22 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 6:51 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 22 May 2022 at 03:48:47 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the one
>>>>>>>>>>>> case you
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested
>>>>>>>>>>> emulation we can see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its final state at machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two
>>>>>>>>>> independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are technically
>>>>>>>>> incompetent
>>>>>>>>> to provide the execution trace of one simulation and one nested
>>>>>>>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of a
>>>>>>>> square circle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show when H
>>>>>>> simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the input to
>>>>>>> H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't
>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how
>>>>>> computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that
>>>>> simulates a
>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape and
>>>>> the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>
>>>> There's only one physical tape.
>>>> But you haven't written a UTM yet. You don't know how the tape of a UTM
>>>> running another UTM is laid out.
>>>
>>> I don't need to know this. I only need to know that all of the
>>> execution traces of all of the inputs are somewhere on the master UTM
>>> tape. I am never going to write a hundred million page long UTM that
>>> does the same thing as my C function.
>>>
>>
>> But you are making claims about how it works, if you don't know how it
>> works how can you make that claim?
>>
>
> I don't have to make claims about how it works.
> I only need these two claims:
>
> (1) The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last
> instruction thus never halts. VERIFIED FACT

Really, you have published a trace of the correct simulation of the
input to H(P,P) [that is a trace of P(P)] that shows it halting.

Yes, you can show that if your H never aborts its simulation of P(P),
then that P(P) is non-halting.

The problem with this case, is H fails to be a decider.

When you do have an H that aborts, then you no longer have a correct
simulation showing what you want, only an incorrect partial simulation
that you apply unsound logic to make you claim.

H MUST be one case of the other, and that affects P, so you can't move
data from one case to the other,

>
> (2) Therefore when H(P,P) returns 0 it is correct. SOUND DEDUCTION

Nope. Since the only cases where you have proved (1) are cases based on
H(P,P) not returning at all, this becomes an UNSOUND deductiom.

Your argement is:

(1) IF H never aborts its simulation, then P(P) never halts.
(2) If H does abort is simulation, then it is correct to say that P(P)
never halts.

Since (1) which was used to show the 'non-halting' was conditioned on H
never aborting, your (2) is making that assumption a false premise. Thus
it is an UNSOUND deduction.

You just proved you don't understand the basics of logic, and that you
are just a pathologic liar.

>
>> I guess that just shows that you will speak authoritatively on things
>> that you don't know anything abuot.
>>
>> That just shows you are a pathological liar.
>
>

Re: Category error

<pGuiK.51$921.31@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32892&group=comp.theory#32892

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Category error
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <874k1l8h4u.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Y7idnfd_v--hARv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1K6dnX9xHfmtMxv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvt6n3s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yeCdnWc-Ja14txr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d6g5tuo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<A5adnZZH0fB8Nxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k0ag44sa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Q5WdnfJskMwcJRr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rqw41bo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YuSdnW-aUL3WXxr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wneg2m2h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<87tu9h28u4.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vpKdnaLyoIqY0Bf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2DtiK.4007$45E8.973@fx47.iad>
<29-dndl0aZ0l-hf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <29-dndl0aZ0l-hf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <pGuiK.51$921.31@fx37.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 May 2022 13:47:01 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4766
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 17:47 UTC

On 5/22/22 12:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/22 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 4:52 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>> If you respond to thread calling me a liar, could I ask you to consider
>>>> changing the subject line?
>>>>
>>>> (All the additions -- "HEAD GAMES", "smart honest people would agree"
>>>> and "Ben is a Liar" are insults intended to goad people into continuing
>>>> the conversation, but calling me a sadistic liar is, IMO, beyond the
>>>> pale.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> I really seems to be an accurate assessment to me.
>>> If you do the very best that you can to make sure to acknowledge that
>>> facts are true or provide the details that you fail to understand of
>>> my proof of key facts I will change my assessment.
>>>
>>> It is the case that the C function H does correctly determine that
>>> the C function named P would never reach its last instruction when
>>> correctly emulated by H. If you deny this fact you are still a
>>> sadistic liar playing head games.
>>
>> But only if H never returns an answer. Since you stipulated that
>> H(P,P) returns the value of 0 (you can't stipulate that this answer is
>> correct), then we KNOW that P(P) will halt, because H INCORRECTLY
>> aborts its simulation of P,P and decides it is non-halting.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you say that you do not understand how I proved that this is true
>>> and point out the gaps in your understanding of key points that I
>>> have made then my assessment changes.
>>>
>>
>> Since you have PROVED your own ignorance, who cares about what you
>> think of people.
>>
>> If you REALLY though you were correct, you would be either submitting
>> the paper or finding people that "understand" what you are saying to
>> help you improve.
>>
>
>
> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
> instruction when correctly emulated by H.

Nope, try do so with an H that meets your requirments to give an answer.

>
> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
> lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.

That would be you.

P(P) is verified to Halt if H(P,P) returns 0 in finite time.

THus H(P,P) == 0 is WRONG for the Halting Problem.

>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>

A bunch of garbage based on false traces.

Maybe you should just send that to the Journals, let them get a good laugh.

>
>> The fact that you keep on arguing with people who you think don't
>> understand you is that you know that your ideas really are
>> non-understandable because they are just wrong, and you are trying to
>> find a way to hide your errors.
>
>

Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]

<_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32904&group=comp.theory#32904

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 16:06:57 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 16:06:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<jPednedJMZKJWhr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 197
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DHAy3eDnWILsu2F9c9Be4fbVKNWthEDq2yukTV4SrcNVbIdqj1xPoMWSazYLre+Rt2zkUGEOGEyK3LH!WjvePJxIG7fyAo36v3e1mgobe0uMUxa7E8918pI2QQIa+9HKh1sqgjLdBwoEfX+QEiYNNP3mkTU=
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: 10991
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 21:06 UTC

On 5/22/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/22/22 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one emulation and one nested emulation we can see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P) would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its final state at machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically incompetent to provide the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of one simulation and one nested simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show when H simulates its input, yet another execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "like a square circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM's tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own data.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> part of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is
>>>>>>>>>> a part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator
>>>>>>>>> actual simulated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>>>>>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves
>>>>>>>> the user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines
>>>>>>>> execution trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top
>>>>>>> level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that
>>>>>>> the second level code is emulated by the same emulation process
>>>>>>> that the first is. (That may well be true, but it means you logic
>>>>>>> is still built on a lie).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
>>>>>> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far
>>>>>> too stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite
>>>>> recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>>>
>>>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to
>>>> H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively proving
>>>> that it never halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct simulation
>>> is the version that never aborts. That version fails to answer the
>>> question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>>>
>>> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer
>>> changes P into a Halting Compuation.
>>>
>>> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H, so
>>> if H aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't, then it
>>> is wrong for not answering.
>>>
>>> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the
>>> basics of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep on
>>> trying to define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm, so can't
>>> actually be written.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
>> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
>> instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>
> Don't just "Claim" it, so an ACTUAL verification, or you just show
> yourself to be a liar.
>
>>
>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
>> lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>
> You haven't verified ANY fact, you have made claims using FAKE data that
> don't even really support your claim.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]

<w%xiK.4093$Dr6.2187@fx06.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32907&group=comp.theory#32907

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <87o7zr3od4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>
<_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 231
Message-ID: <w%xiK.4093$Dr6.2187@fx06.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 May 2022 17:34:20 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 12505
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 21:34 UTC

On 5/22/22 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/22 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one emulation and one nested emulation we can see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P) would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its final state at machine address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically incompetent to provide the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of one simulation and one nested simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show when H simulates its input, yet another execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "like a square circle" can't possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM's tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else
>>>>>>>>>>> is a part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator
>>>>>>>>>> actual simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>>>>>>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves
>>>>>>>>> the user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines
>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the two level simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the
>>>>>>>> top level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that
>>>>>>>> the second level code is emulated by the same emulation process
>>>>>>>> that the first is. (That may well be true, but it means you
>>>>>>>> logic is still built on a lie).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
>>>>>>> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far
>>>>>>> too stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite
>>>>>> recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>> H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively
>>>>> proving that it never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct simulation
>>>> is the version that never aborts. That version fails to answer the
>>>> question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer
>>>> changes P into a Halting Compuation.
>>>>
>>>> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H, so
>>>> if H aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't, then
>>>> it is wrong for not answering.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the
>>>> basics of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep on
>>>> trying to define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm, so
>>>> can't actually be written.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
>>> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
>>> instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>>
>> Don't just "Claim" it, so an ACTUAL verification, or you just show
>> yourself to be a liar.
>>
>>>
>>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
>>> lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>>
>> You haven't verified ANY fact, you have made claims using FAKE data
>> that don't even really support your claim.
>>
>
> Software engineering experts
> can reverse-engineer what the correct x86 emulation of the input to
> H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation thus
> confirming that the provided execution trace is correct. They can do
> this entirely on the basis of the x86 source-code for P with no need to
> see the source-code or execution trace of H.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]

<14mdnbVyJJSlLxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32910&group=comp.theory#32910

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 May 2022 16:59:19 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 16:59:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<SfWdnTcajIIjkxX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>
<_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w%xiK.4093$Dr6.2187@fx06.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <w%xiK.4093$Dr6.2187@fx06.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <14mdnbVyJJSlLxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 224
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0qQ8RMOiMw9wkjbChIDKAP7D2FU0nNemWT3eUJcglrTqq89imwYzqKxaCrcFPKLsVmdy6NwIMCtsxJH!Es+rvEyG3KlWw5QVOf5AQge0KXs0hzVg342w789cBdrQPOOLuAk1wdbvzoRl7TZ/VHsUGZBnInw=
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: 12445
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 21:59 UTC

On 5/22/2022 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/22/22 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/22/22 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for one emulation and one nested emulation we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its final state at machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path of two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically incompetent to provide the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of one simulation and one nested simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent of a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show when H simulates its input, yet another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM's tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE trace, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of its own data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator
>>>>>>>>>>> actual simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated.
>>>>>>>>>> Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only
>>>>>>>>>> leaves the user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the
>>>>>>>>>> 14 lines execution trace of the two level simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the
>>>>>>>>> top level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that
>>>>>>>>> the second level code is emulated by the same emulation process
>>>>>>>>> that the first is. (That may well be true, but it means you
>>>>>>>>> logic is still built on a lie).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same
>>>>>>>> execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far
>>>>>>>> too stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an
>>>>>>> infinite recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>> H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively
>>>>>> proving that it never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct simulation
>>>>> is the version that never aborts. That version fails to answer the
>>>>> question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer
>>>>> changes P into a Halting Compuation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H, so
>>>>> if H aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't, then
>>>>> it is wrong for not answering.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the
>>>>> basics of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep
>>>>> on trying to define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm, so
>>>>> can't actually be written.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
>>>> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
>>>> instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>>>
>>> Don't just "Claim" it, so an ACTUAL verification, or you just show
>>> yourself to be a liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis
>>>> of lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>>>
>>> You haven't verified ANY fact, you have made claims using FAKE data
>>> that don't even really support your claim.
>>>
>>
>> Software engineering experts
>> can reverse-engineer what the correct x86 emulation of the input to
>> H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation thus
>> confirming that the provided execution trace is correct. They can do
>> this entirely on the basis of the x86 source-code for P with no need
>> to see the source-code or execution trace of H.
>
> Interesting point, that you eed to talk about "reverse-engineering" this
> output implies that you don't actually have a program to generate it.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]

<aUyiK.25550$5fVf.21040@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32913&group=comp.theory#32913

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc> <87bkvr3kqn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vNmdncQOi5o3ohT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>
<_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w%xiK.4093$Dr6.2187@fx06.iad>
<14mdnbVyJJSlLxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <14mdnbVyJJSlLxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 257
Message-ID: <aUyiK.25550$5fVf.21040@fx09.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 May 2022 18:34:46 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 13544
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 22:34 UTC

On 5/22/22 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/22 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/22 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for one emulation and one nested emulation we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its final state at machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path of two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically incompetent to provide the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of one simulation and one nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent of a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show when H simulates its input, yet another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM's tape and the only actual executable is the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that second UTM simulates in its own processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace, and NOT part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of its own data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is
>>>>>>>>>>> emulated. Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This
>>>>>>>>>>> only leaves the user code such as P() and main(). Then we see
>>>>>>>>>>> the 14 lines execution trace of the two level simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the
>>>>>>>>>> top level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying
>>>>>>>>>> that the second level code is emulated by the same emulation
>>>>>>>>>> process that the first is. (That may well be true, but it
>>>>>>>>>> means you logic is still built on a lie).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the
>>>>>>>>> same execution trace of its input every time it is called you
>>>>>>>>> are far too stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an
>>>>>>>> infinite recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>> H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively
>>>>>>> proving that it never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct
>>>>>> simulation is the version that never aborts. That version fails to
>>>>>> answer the question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer
>>>>>> changes P into a Halting Compuation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H,
>>>>>> so if H aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't,
>>>>>> then it is wrong for not answering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the
>>>>>> basics of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep
>>>>>> on trying to define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm, so
>>>>>> can't actually be written.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does
>>>>> correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach
>>>>> its last instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>>>>
>>>> Don't just "Claim" it, so an ACTUAL verification, or you just show
>>>> yourself to be a liar.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis
>>>>> of lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>>>>
>>>> You haven't verified ANY fact, you have made claims using FAKE data
>>>> that don't even really support your claim.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Software engineering experts
>>> can reverse-engineer what the correct x86 emulation of the input to
>>> H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation thus
>>> confirming that the provided execution trace is correct. They can do
>>> this entirely on the basis of the x86 source-code for P with no need
>>> to see the source-code or execution trace of H.
>>
>> Interesting point, that you eed to talk about "reverse-engineering"
>> this output implies that you don't actually have a program to generate
>> it.
>>
>
> Not at all. This program took me a whole man-year.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point ? ]

<98ednSKRt-qvIxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32915&group=comp.theory#32915

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 17:50:26 -0500
Date: Sun, 22 May 2022 17:50:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point
? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<r%fiK.28447$J0r9.3351@fx11.iad>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>
<_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w%xiK.4093$Dr6.2187@fx06.iad>
<14mdnbVyJJSlLxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aUyiK.25550$5fVf.21040@fx09.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <aUyiK.25550$5fVf.21040@fx09.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <98ednSKRt-qvIxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 313
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-amiMVk/ovZUP5Lj2LyB5esiW9zJERdYQN/u/hoBtt1fuw0ffE/FfVhHotdxkdK4qnnpLRA4ASGfHCPG!/Nj8qucqVvqwKVaQFTZlHyzAFuLGI/4yA1GuTvdjlta6hsYylN8Jz1k1YBeirLYKtqXAFw50oDk=
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: 16745
 by: olcott - Sun, 22 May 2022 22:50 UTC

On 5/22/2022 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/22/22 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/22/2022 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/22/22 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/22 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for one emulation and one nested emulation we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see that the correctly emulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would never reach its final state at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path of two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically incompetent to provide the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of one simulation and one nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent of a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show when H simulates its input, yet another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) that was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM's tape and the only actual executable is the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that the second UTM is going through, but NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the states that second UTM simulates in its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace, and NOT part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of its own data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else is a part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated. Operating system code has its trace tuned off.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This only leaves the user code such as P() and main(). Then
>>>>>>>>>>>> we see the 14 lines execution trace of the two level
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the
>>>>>>>>>>> top level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying
>>>>>>>>>>> that the second level code is emulated by the same emulation
>>>>>>>>>>> process that the first is. (That may well be true, but it
>>>>>>>>>>> means you logic is still built on a lie).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the
>>>>>>>>>> same execution trace of its input every time it is called you
>>>>>>>>>> are far too stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an
>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input
>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively
>>>>>>>> proving that it never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct
>>>>>>> simulation is the version that never aborts. That version fails
>>>>>>> to answer the question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer
>>>>>>> changes P into a Halting Compuation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H,
>>>>>>> so if H aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't,
>>>>>>> then it is wrong for not answering.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the
>>>>>>> basics of how computations work. Part of your problem is you keep
>>>>>>> on trying to define H by rules that aren't an actual algorithm,
>>>>>>> so can't actually be written.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does
>>>>>> correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach
>>>>>> its last instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't just "Claim" it, so an ACTUAL verification, or you just show
>>>>> yourself to be a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis
>>>>>> of lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't verified ANY fact, you have made claims using FAKE data
>>>>> that don't even really support your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Software engineering experts
>>>> can reverse-engineer what the correct x86 emulation of the input to
>>>> H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation thus
>>>> confirming that the provided execution trace is correct. They can do
>>>> this entirely on the basis of the x86 source-code for P with no need
>>>> to see the source-code or execution trace of H.
>>>
>>> Interesting point, that you eed to talk about "reverse-engineering"
>>> this output implies that you don't actually have a program to
>>> generate it.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. This program took me a whole man-year.
>
> Then why do we need to "reverse-engineer" the trace?
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point ? ]

<CjziK.4179$lut9.2452@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32916&group=comp.theory#32916

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!178.20.174.213.MISMATCH!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!fx99.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point
? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220514170555.00004550@reddwarf.jmc>
<I6idnSDl8NcUDRT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <s5hiK.45$cq8.28@fx03.iad>
<NtGdndBRE5xLAhT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MlhiK.9438$kaDc.6185@fx46.iad>
<h6OdnUIaNIYVORT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<K4iiK.20028$zgr9.11815@fx13.iad>
<RrSdna_nM600MhT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<HtiiK.3779$45E8.1989@fx47.iad>
<RtudndMn4p2gKBT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<DEiiK.9440$kaDc.4559@fx46.iad>
<xoKdnSPcs6RjXhT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<xOoiK.1639$gjlb.707@fx44.iad>
<5oKdnSRTHInY0hf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BqtiK.4006$45E8.3623@fx47.iad>
<37ednZeMJLXL-Bf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jItiK.2805$vAW9.1754@fx10.iad>
<29-dndh0aZ2U9Rf_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <xwuiK.795$8T.565@fx40.iad>
<_tOdnaZ1Xa1sOBf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w%xiK.4093$Dr6.2187@fx06.iad>
<14mdnbVyJJSlLxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aUyiK.25550$5fVf.21040@fx09.iad>
<98ednSKRt-qvIxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <98ednSKRt-qvIxf_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 347
Message-ID: <CjziK.4179$lut9.2452@fx99.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 May 2022 19:04:01 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 17937
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 22 May 2022 23:04 UTC

On 5/22/22 6:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 5:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/22 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2022 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/22/22 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/22 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:40 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 11:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2022 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/22 1:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2022 5:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have known that the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated correctly proving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only for the one case you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong, because P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we correctly reverse-engineer what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for one emulation and one nested emulation we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can see that the correctly emulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would never reach its final state at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address [0000136c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path of two independent execution units.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you acknowledge that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically incompetent to provide the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of one simulation and one nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you are asking for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalent of a of a square circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy to show when H simulates its input, yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another execution trace of the input to H(P,P) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact you don't understand that says you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know how computers or programs actually work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM that simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM description all of this is simply data on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first UTM's tape and the only actual executable is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that the second UTM is going through, but NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the states that second UTM simulates in its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states that it has simulated, but that is a SEPERATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace, and NOT part of the trace from the OUTER UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of its own data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't part of the trace generated by that UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else is a part of the same nested process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the only actual valid trace is what that outer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator actual simulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a valid trace of every line of code that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated. Operating system code has its trace tuned off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This only leaves the user code such as P() and main(). Then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we see the 14 lines execution trace of the two level
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>> the top level emulator, its emulator is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the second level code is emulated by the same emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> process that the first is. (That may well be true, but it
>>>>>>>>>>>> means you logic is still built on a lie).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the
>>>>>>>>>>> same execution trace of its input every time it is called you
>>>>>>>>>>> are far too stupid to evaluate my work.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an
>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion wneh the top level doesn't?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input
>>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively
>>>>>>>>> proving that it never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only machine that you have shown that does a correct
>>>>>>>> simulation is the version that never aborts. That version fails
>>>>>>>> to answer the question, so fails to be a halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting answer
>>>>>>>> changes P into a Halting Compuation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "pathological" use of H by P lets it change as you change H,
>>>>>>>> so if H aborts, it is wrong because THAT P halts, if it doesn't,
>>>>>>>> then it is wrong for not answering.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to miss this fact because you just don't understand the
>>>>>>>> basics of how computations work. Part of your problem is you
>>>>>>>> keep on trying to define H by rules that aren't an actual
>>>>>>>> algorithm, so can't actually be written.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does
>>>>>>> correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach
>>>>>>> its last instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't just "Claim" it, so an ACTUAL verification, or you just show
>>>>>> yourself to be a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the
>>>>>>> basis of lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You haven't verified ANY fact, you have made claims using FAKE
>>>>>> data that don't even really support your claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Software engineering experts
>>>>> can reverse-engineer what the correct x86 emulation of the input to
>>>>> H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation thus
>>>>> confirming that the provided execution trace is correct. They can
>>>>> do this entirely on the basis of the x86 source-code for P with no
>>>>> need to see the source-code or execution trace of H.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting point, that you eed to talk about "reverse-engineering"
>>>> this output implies that you don't actually have a program to
>>>> generate it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. This program took me a whole man-year.
>>
>> Then why do we need to "reverse-engineer" the trace?
>>
>
> It is the only way that you can verify that this trace is correct:


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123456789101112
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor