On 5/24/22 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 11:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/23/22 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about
>>>>>>>>>>>> which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the
>>>>>>>>>>>> holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next
>>>>>>>>>>>> post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating
>>>>>>>>>>>> "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure
>>>>>>>>>>>> to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number
>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named
>>>>>>>>>>> Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named
>>>>>>>>>>> Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have
>>>>>>>>>> nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and
>>>>>>>>>> both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same
>>>>>>>> as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>
>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim
>>>> the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>
>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>
>>>  >>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have
>>> nothing to back that up.
>>>
>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>
>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient
>>> technical background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>
>> No, they can confirm that it MUST be INCORECT by the requirement of H.
>>
>> P(P) will Halt if H(P,P) returns 0.
>>
>> H(P,P) is REQUIRED to return 1 if P(P) halts, that is the DEFINITION
>> of a Halting Decider, thus H is wrong.
>>
>> You are NOT allowed to change the Definition of the problem and still
>> claim to be working on the problem.
>>
>> That is like you saying it is ok to say "I have no dogs in my house"
>> when someone asks "Howmany Cats are in your houst?"
>>
>>>
>>> Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of
>>> finite strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion
>>> for returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret"
>>> instruction.
>>
>> Except that it DOESN'T correctly emulates its input if it aborts it.
>>
>> And your finite string that you claim is P doesn't define the program
>> P as it refers to code outside the string. (PROGRAMS are complete, and
>> Halting is defined on COMPLETE PROGRAMS).
>>
>>>
>>> The only other remaining objection is whether or not a halt decider
>>> must compute the mapping of its input finite strings to an accept or
>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified
>>> by its input OR SOME OTHER MEASURE.
>>
>>
>> Right, and the BEHAVIOR OF THE INPUT for H(P,P) IS *DEFINED* to be
>> whether P(P) Halts or not. Any other defintion and you are not working
>> on 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Just a bunch of garbage that shows you don't know what you are talking
>> about. Detail reviews given previously.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is all that any of you have and good software engineering
>>> refutes the first and good computer science refutes the second.
>>
>> Nope, GOOD computer science shows that you are not good at computer
>> science and fail to comprehend even the basics of it.
>
> (1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>
>> >> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>
>> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>
> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
> in favour of the revision.

It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
opinion".

> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,

I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.

The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
"informed opinion" come crashing down.

And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.

> it
> can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
> from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
> within the system.

Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
"corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
truth, is hard to justify.

--
Ben.

On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>
>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>
>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>
>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>
>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>> in favour of the revision.
>
> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
> opinion".
>
>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>
> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>
> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
> "informed opinion" come crashing down.

And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is working
on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.

His has a distinct view of what "Truth" is, and he seems to NEED it to
always be that way, and the proofs he claims to have found a "counter"
to, are all core pieces of classical proofs that there are things that
are factually True, but can not be Proved.

Fundamentally, the core error in his disproof is that he is adding his
"Axiom" that "True === Provable" to the logic system, and then using
that to show that these proofs must be wrong, so he can try to prove
that True === Provable. This is of course a logical fallacy. He then
ignores the inconsistencies that this Axiom creates as the "wrong" side
of every inconsistency is just declaired to be not right by its meaning,
even though it DOES come via a valid proof. You get the worse problem
that yes, maybe everything that can be considered True is provable, but
you no longer have the fact that everything provable is actually True,
as you can prove false things that become false, not by logic, but by
arbitrary definitions because its converse has been taken to be true.

>
> And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
> non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
> different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
> all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.
>

At one point I was willing to accept that he had a possible new idea for
a logic system that might be useful for some systems of thought (but not
mathematics). From the way he has been going on, I am not convinced that
there is no usable idea at the core, but mere delusions.

I have come to realize that Natural Language CAN'T be the basis of
defining Truth, as Natural Language is inherently imprecise, and thus
can't actually provide a formal system for logic.

Maybe you can develop a verbal philosophy based on using the meaning of
words, but it does not actually provide a method of testing an idea for
being actually True. You need to move from a "Natural Language" with its
slippery definitions, to a "Formal Language" with precise definitions to
get to an actual idea of Truth.

The example I have been giving him to try to prove "By the meaning of
the words" is actually a good example of this, trying to prove that "The
Square of the Hypotonuse of a Right Triangle is equal to the Sum of the
Squares of the other two sides" is an interesting problem. By his
"rules" that Mathematics is analytical and all Analytical Expression are
provable by the meaning of the words is shown to be flawed here.

The key point here is that this statement, while True in the "Normal"
rules we work on, it is only true if we assume that we are working in
the realm of Plane Geometery. Once we allow non-Euclidean Geometries to
exist, and they do, (and current views of reality are that it is
non-Euclidean) the statement ends up being not true.

The key is none of the words used imply that we are using an Euclidean
system, so the words themself can't make the statement True. Only by
adding the Mathematical Context of the assumption of Euclidean space
make the statement provable by Formal Logic, which is NOT based on
"Natural Language", but on Formalities.

Thus, it is a "Proof" that is system is based on a lie.

>> it
>> can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
>> from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
>> within the system.
>
> Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
> one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
> "corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
> generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
> truth, is hard to justify.
>

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:58:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> >> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>
> >> >> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>
> >> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> > It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
> >
> > If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
> > wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
> > in favour of the revision.
> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
> opinion".
> > However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>
> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>
> And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
> non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
> different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
> all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.
> > it
> > can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
> > from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
> > within the system.
> Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
> one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
> "corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
> generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
> truth, is hard to justify.
>
I'm a biologist by training, not a mathematician. But in biology, there is
something called "Hamilton's rule" which is that an organism will make
a resource transfer to a relative if the benefit to the relative is greater
than the loss to the donor, divided by the co-efficient of relatedness.
It's misleading because it doesn't consider the possibility of reciprocal
transfers. That's an example of something which seemed to be purely
mathematical in nature, and was generally accepted, but isn't in fact right.

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:58:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>> >> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> >> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>> >>
>> >> >> All things being equal which is more likely:
>> >>
>> >> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>> >> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>> > It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>> >
>> > If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>> > wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>> > in favour of the revision.
>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>> opinion".
>> > However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>
>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>>
>> And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
>> non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
>> different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
>> all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.
>> > it
>> > can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
>> > from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
>> > within the system.
>> Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
>> one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
>> "corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
>> generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
>> truth, is hard to justify.
>>
> I'm a biologist by training, not a mathematician. But in biology, there is
> something called "Hamilton's rule" which is that an organism will make
> a resource transfer to a relative if the benefit to the relative is greater
> than the loss to the donor, divided by the co-efficient of relatedness.
> It's misleading because it doesn't consider the possibility of reciprocal
> transfers. That's an example of something which seemed to be purely
> mathematical in nature, and was generally accepted, but isn't in fact
> right.

I don't see how that's "purely mathematical". It's expressed in terms
of a formula, but there is nothing to prove, mathematically. The
formula may or may not accurately model the world, but that's
experimental biology. Sure, you can derive that sort of formula by
making assumptions about the world, and those derivation will look a but
like proofs, but the result is not a mathematical theorem.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that "informed opinion" was a very
odd phrase to describe establish mathematics, and that there are no
cases I know of where established mathematics was shown to be invalid.

--
Ben.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 12:48:24 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:58:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> >> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >> >> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >> > It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
> >> >
> >> > If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
> >> > wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
> >> > in favour of the revision.
> >> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
> >> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
> >> opinion".
> >> > However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
> >> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
> >> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
> >> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
> >> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
> >> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
> >> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
> >>
> >> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
> >> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
> >> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
> >> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
> >> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
> >>
> >> And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
> >> non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
> >> different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
> >> all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.
> >> > it
> >> > can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
> >> > from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
> >> > within the system.
> >> Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
> >> one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
> >> "corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
> >> generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
> >> truth, is hard to justify.
> >>
> > I'm a biologist by training, not a mathematician. But in biology, there is
> > something called "Hamilton's rule" which is that an organism will make
> > a resource transfer to a relative if the benefit to the relative is greater
> > than the loss to the donor, divided by the co-efficient of relatedness.
> > It's misleading because it doesn't consider the possibility of reciprocal
> > transfers. That's an example of something which seemed to be purely
> > mathematical in nature, and was generally accepted, but isn't in fact
> > right.
> I don't see how that's "purely mathematical". It's expressed in terms
> of a formula, but there is nothing to prove, mathematically. The
> formula may or may not accurately model the world, but that's
> experimental biology. Sure, you can derive that sort of formula by
> making assumptions about the world, and those derivation will look a but
> like proofs, but the result is not a mathematical theorem.
>
You prove that an organism that makes the resource transfer will be
more successful in getting its genes into the next generation than
an organism that doesn't. It's not based on experimental results,
other than calculating the coefficient of relatedness itself, which
is ultimately based on observation.
>
> Anyway, I just wanted to point out that "informed opinion" was a very
> odd phrase to describe establish mathematics, and that there are no
> cases I know of where established mathematics was shown to be invalid.
>

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >
> >>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>
> >>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>
> >>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >
> > If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> to back that up.
> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.

On 5/24/2022 5:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/24/22 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 11:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/23/22 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and
>>>>>>>>>>> both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same
>>>>>>>>> as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case
>>>>>> (because
>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim
>>>>> the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>
>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have
>>>> nothing to back that up.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient
>>>> technical background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>
>>> No, they can confirm that it MUST be INCORECT by the requirement of H.
>>>
>>> P(P) will Halt if H(P,P) returns 0.
>>>
>>> H(P,P) is REQUIRED to return 1 if P(P) halts, that is the DEFINITION
>>> of a Halting Decider, thus H is wrong.
>>>
>>> You are NOT allowed to change the Definition of the problem and still
>>> claim to be working on the problem.
>>>
>>> That is like you saying it is ok to say "I have no dogs in my house"
>>> when someone asks "Howmany Cats are in your houst?"
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of
>>>> finite strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion
>>>> for returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret"
>>>> instruction.
>>>
>>> Except that it DOESN'T correctly emulates its input if it aborts it.
>>>
>>> And your finite string that you claim is P doesn't define the program
>>> P as it refers to code outside the string. (PROGRAMS are complete,
>>> and Halting is defined on COMPLETE PROGRAMS).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only other remaining objection is whether or not a halt decider
>>>> must compute the mapping of its input finite strings to an accept or
>>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified
>>>> by its input OR SOME OTHER MEASURE.
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and the BEHAVIOR OF THE INPUT for H(P,P) IS *DEFINED* to be
>>> whether P(P) Halts or not. Any other defintion and you are not
>>> working on 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just a bunch of garbage that shows you don't know what you are
>>> talking about. Detail reviews given previously.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is all that any of you have and good software engineering
>>>> refutes the first and good computer science refutes the second.
>>>
>>> Nope, GOOD computer science shows that you are not good at computer
>>> science and fail to comprehend even the basics of it.
>>
>> (1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>
> Nope, already explained.

On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>
>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>
>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>> to back that up.
>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>
> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>
>>
>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>
> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
the same thing is baseless.

On 5/24/2022 4:13 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>
>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>
>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>
>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>> validation.
>> You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
>> Olcott is incorrect.
>>
> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>
> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
> in favour of the revision.

> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong, it
> can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
> from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
> within the system.
>

All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:

Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of finite
strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for
returning 0 is that the correctly simulated P would never reach its
"ret" instruction.

In this case all of my reviewers are simply disagreeing with an easily
verifiable fact thus conclusively proving their lack of technical
competence.

> But that doesn't mean that it's inevitable that the lone man, with few
> formal qualifications, in his bedroom, is wrong. You neeed to look at
> what he has to say, and take it on its own terms.

Yes the only honest voice of all of my reviewers.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>
> >>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >> to back that up.
> >> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >
> > Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >
> >>
> >> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >
> > It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> the same thing is baseless.
> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.

On 5/24/2022 3:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>
>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>
>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>
>>> ?
>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>
>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>> validation.
>
> You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
> Olcott is incorrect.
>
>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>> is correct.
>
> No it doesn't. You don't understand the big words in that sentence.
>
>> This means that everyone that disagrees is either insufficiently
>> technically competent or a liar.
>
> And that's the sort of denigration which is wholly uncalled for, and has
> brought the level of this newsgroup down from debating to abuse.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>

If people would not disagree with easily verifiable facts for the sole
purpose of being disagreeable I would not be so harsh on them.

When people disagree with what they know are verified facts this
objectively makes them liars.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 5/24/2022 5:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>
>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>
>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>
>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>> validation.
>>> You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
>>> Olcott is incorrect.
>
>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>
> Well, Mr Flibble posed his question in neutral terms, and I think it's a
> valid question to ask.
>
>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>> in favour of the revision.
>
> I don't really know how long this stage typically lasts, that is for new
> facts, arguments, principles to be adopted by a second knowledgeable
> person, having been convinced by the first person. But I would guess
> it's less than many years.
>
>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong, it
>> can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
>> from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
>> within the system.
>
> Yes.
>
>> But that doesn't mean that it's inevitable that the lone man, with few
>> formal qualifications, in his bedroom, is wrong. You neeed to look at
>> what he has to say, and take it on its own terms.
>
> Well, I have been doing that mainly as a lurker over the last few years,
> though I have posted little here - I don't have any particular expertise
> on the matter beyond a degree in maths, and I don't fancy getting
> deluged with abuse, which has happened to quite a few people here.
>
> Having looked at what Peter Olcott has to say, over an extended period
> of time, it just doesn't measure up. The counter arguments from other
> people appear strong, and they have not been dealt with.
>

All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:

Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of finite
strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for
returning 0 is that the correctly simulated P would never reach its
"ret" instruction.

In this case all of my reviewers are simply disagreeing with an easily
verifiable fact thus conclusively proving their lack of technical
competence.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

> On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>
>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>
>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>
>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>>> in favour of the revision.
>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>> opinion".
>>
>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>
>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>
> And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is working
> on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
> because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.

Yes. He has objected to Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Tarski and no doubt
others. But if his knowledge of these topics was anything more than
superficial, he'd know that it's Cantor he needs to challenge. In this
respect other cranks like WM get it right. They at least know where it
all starts. The trouble with Cantor's theorems (for people like PO) is
they are just simple maths and have no "real world" analogy you can use
to avoid talking maths. Turing is the obvious target for people who
know programming. It seems to be simply an engineering problem.

A while back, there was a movement in the US, driven by fundamentalist
evangelical Christians, to get uncountable sets off the maths
curriculum. For some people, uncountability, incompleteness and
undecidability are the new "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium". I
think quite a few objections to these theorems arise from some sort of
spiritual take on how the world "must" be constructed.

--
Ben.

On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>> to back that up.
>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>
>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>
>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>> the same thing is baseless.
>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>
> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.

On 5/24/2022 9:54 AM, Ben wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>
>>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>>
>>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>>>> in favour of the revision.
>>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>>> opinion".
>>>
>>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>>
>>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
>>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>>> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
>>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
>>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>>> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
>>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
>>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>>
>> And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is working
>> on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
>> because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.
>
> Yes. He has objected to Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Tarski and no doubt
> others. But if his knowledge of these topics was anything more than
> superficial, he'd know that it's Cantor he needs to challenge. In this
> respect other cranks like WM get it right. They at least know where it
> all starts. The trouble with Cantor's theorems (for people like PO) is
> they are just simple maths and have no "real world" analogy you can use
> to avoid talking maths. Turing is the obvious target for people who
> know programming. It seems to be simply an engineering problem.
>

My infinitesimal number system does form a bijection between reals and
immediately adjacent geometric points on a number line.

The interval (0,1] is exactly one geometric point longer than the
interval (0,1) thus making reals countable in some sense.

> A while back, there was a movement in the US, driven by fundamentalist
> evangelical Christians, to get uncountable sets off the maths
> curriculum. For some people, uncountability, incompleteness and
> undecidability are the new "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium". I
> think quite a few objections to these theorems arise from some sort of
> spiritual take on how the world "must" be constructed.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 12:48:24 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:58:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> >> >> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> All things being equal which is more likely:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>> >> >> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>> >> > It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>> >> >
>> >> > If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>> >> > wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>> >> > in favour of the revision.
>> >> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>> >> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>> >> opinion".
>> >> > However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>> >> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>> >> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
>> >> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>> >> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
>> >> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>> >> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>> >>
>> >> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
>> >> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>> >> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
>> >> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
>> >> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>> >>
>> >> And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
>> >> non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
>> >> different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
>> >> all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.
>> >> > it
>> >> > can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
>> >> > from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
>> >> > within the system.
>> >> Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
>> >> one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
>> >> "corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
>> >> generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
>> >> truth, is hard to justify.
>> >>
>> > I'm a biologist by training, not a mathematician. But in biology, there is
>> > something called "Hamilton's rule" which is that an organism will make
>> > a resource transfer to a relative if the benefit to the relative is greater
>> > than the loss to the donor, divided by the co-efficient of relatedness.
>> > It's misleading because it doesn't consider the possibility of reciprocal
>> > transfers. That's an example of something which seemed to be purely
>> > mathematical in nature, and was generally accepted, but isn't in fact
>> > right.
>> I don't see how that's "purely mathematical". It's expressed in terms
>> of a formula, but there is nothing to prove, mathematically. The
>> formula may or may not accurately model the world, but that's
>> experimental biology. Sure, you can derive that sort of formula by
>> making assumptions about the world, and those derivation will look a but
>> like proofs, but the result is not a mathematical theorem.
>>
> You prove that an organism that makes the resource transfer will be
> more successful in getting its genes into the next generation than
> an organism that doesn't. It's not based on experimental results,
> other than calculating the coefficient of relatedness itself, which
> is ultimately based on observation.

Odd to do biology that need not match experimental results but if there
is, as you say, a proof from some assumptions, then it's true in all
models that comport with those assumptions even if no such models have
any relationship with the real world. Has the "proof" been invalidated?
If not, then what you call the "informed opinion" on the topic should
remain uncorrected. And, in my opinion, all well-informed biologists
should ignore the result since it's purely mathematical.

That was an odd paragraph to write because I am trying to take you at
your word. It's not been my experience that any scientific models, in
any discipline, are purely mathematical. That would seem to me to be
pointless. What I wanted to write was "I think you are misrepresenting
biology" but I'll defer to your experience.

--
Ben.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>> to back that up.
> >>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>
> >>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>
> >>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >> the same thing is baseless.
> >> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >
> > So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> lie that I never explained it.

On 2022-05-24 08:13, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 5:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/24/22 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:

>>> (1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>
>> Nope, already explained.
>
> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.

So why don't you produce some technically competent software engineers
who agree with you?

>>
>>>
>>> (2) Good computer science shows that a halt decider must
>>> compute the mapping from its input finite strings to an accept or
>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by
>>> its input.
>>>
>>
>> Right, is CAN only compute an answer from a finite algorithm from its
>> input, but such an answer doesn't match the definition of the problem,
>> so a machine that computes the Halting Function can't exist.
>>
>
> A computer scientist with sufficient technical competence would disagree.

So why don't you produce some technically competent computer scientists
who agree with you?

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 16:07:13 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 12:48:24 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:58:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> >> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> >> >> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >> >> >> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >> >> > It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
> >> >> > wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
> >> >> > in favour of the revision.
> >> >> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
> >> >> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
> >> >> opinion".
> >> >> > However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
> >> >> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
> >> >> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
> >> >> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
> >> >> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
> >> >> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
> >> >> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
> >> >>
> >> >> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
> >> >> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
> >> >> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
> >> >> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
> >> >> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
> >> >>
> >> >> And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
> >> >> non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
> >> >> different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
> >> >> all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
> >> >> > from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
> >> >> > within the system.
> >> >> Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
> >> >> one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
> >> >> "corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
> >> >> generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
> >> >> truth, is hard to justify.
> >> >>
> >> > I'm a biologist by training, not a mathematician. But in biology, there is
> >> > something called "Hamilton's rule" which is that an organism will make
> >> > a resource transfer to a relative if the benefit to the relative is greater
> >> > than the loss to the donor, divided by the co-efficient of relatedness.
> >> > It's misleading because it doesn't consider the possibility of reciprocal
> >> > transfers. That's an example of something which seemed to be purely
> >> > mathematical in nature, and was generally accepted, but isn't in fact
> >> > right.
> >> I don't see how that's "purely mathematical". It's expressed in terms
> >> of a formula, but there is nothing to prove, mathematically. The
> >> formula may or may not accurately model the world, but that's
> >> experimental biology. Sure, you can derive that sort of formula by
> >> making assumptions about the world, and those derivation will look a but
> >> like proofs, but the result is not a mathematical theorem.
> >>
> > You prove that an organism that makes the resource transfer will be
> > more successful in getting its genes into the next generation than
> > an organism that doesn't. It's not based on experimental results,
> > other than calculating the coefficient of relatedness itself, which
> > is ultimately based on observation.
> Odd to do biology that need not match experimental results but if there
> is, as you say, a proof from some assumptions, then it's true in all
> models that comport with those assumptions even if no such models have
> any relationship with the real world. Has the "proof" been invalidated?
> If not, then what you call the "informed opinion" on the topic should
> remain uncorrected. And, in my opinion, all well-informed biologists
> should ignore the result since it's purely mathematical.
>
> That was an odd paragraph to write because I am trying to take you at
> your word. It's not been my experience that any scientific models, in
> any discipline, are purely mathematical. That would seem to me to be
> pointless. What I wanted to write was "I think you are misrepresenting
> biology" but I'll defer to your experience.
>
You have to have some assumptions, such as that genes are real, that
they are transmitted to the next generation. You also need some slightly
more subtle assumptions, such as that the genes have perfect control
of behaviour, and that organisms have perfect relevant information, and
that the system has reached stability.
But evolution will dictate that a resource transfer will take place, when
the genetic benefit exceeds the genetic cost. That's independent of any
observations. You don't observe a resource transfer, measure the cost,
measure the benefit to the recipient, and derive the rule that way.

You do however observe a resource transfer. The classic example is the
social insects. It's also the case that many social insects are more closely
related to their sisters than to their children, because of a quirk in their
genetics. So it's not as if the model is devoid of any connection to observed
reality. But it's ultimately a claim about mathematics, not about animals.
It has to be true if our sums are correct.

On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>
>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>> lie that I never explained it.
>
> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>
>>
>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>> be brown.
>>>
>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>
>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>
> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>
> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]

On 5/24/2022 10:35 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-24 08:13, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 5:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/24/22 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>> (1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>
>>> Nope, already explained.
>>
>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>
> So why don't you produce some technically competent software engineers
> who agree with you?
>

That seem to be the next logical step.

>>>
>>>>
>>>> (2) Good computer science shows that a halt decider must
>>>> compute the mapping from its input finite strings to an accept or
>>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by
>>>> its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, is CAN only compute an answer from a finite algorithm from its
>>> input, but such an answer doesn't match the definition of the
>>> problem, so a machine that computes the Halting Function can't exist.
>>>
>>
>> A computer scientist with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>
> So why don't you produce some technically competent computer scientists
> who agree with you?
>
> André
>

Since there is zero wiggle room of subjective interpretation on the
software engineering side such that everyone disagreeing is either
technically incompetent or a liar it makes sense to have this aspect
sustained first.

Then on the basis of H(P,P)==0 having been sustained by a consensus of
competent software engineers I would present my work to competent
computer scientists that may not have the software engineering technical
background to sustain H(P,P)==0.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>
> >>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >> lie that I never explained it.
> >
> > And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >
> >>
> >> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>> be brown.
> >>>
> >>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>
> >>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >
> > As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >
> > I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> _P()
> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>
> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.

On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>
>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>
>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>
>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>
>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>> _P()
>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>
>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>
> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>
> >>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>
> >>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>
> >>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >> _P()
> >> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>
> >> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >
> > It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.