On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least one of
>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions are
>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>
>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>
>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to derive
>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>
>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>
>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a UTM.
>> (simulator).
>
> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>

When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the answer
all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.

>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that proof?

--
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 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a
>>>>>>>> Halt
>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least
>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider
>>>>>> is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything
>>>>>> which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions are
>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt decider
>>>> is self-contradictory?
>>>>
>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to derive
>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>
>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>
>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a UTM.
>>> (simulator).
>>
>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>
>
> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the answer
> all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.

So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting from
ACCEPTED definition.

You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the words.

Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one can
help you with your logic.

Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really need to
give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name with a modifier).

Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the accepted
definition, you can call it PO-Halting.

Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider, so you
counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem, so it is
clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.

>
>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that proof?
>

You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using altered
definition that you aren't providing.

On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a
>>>>>>>>> Halt
>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least
>>>>>>>> one of
>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider
>>>>>>> is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything
>>>>>>> which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions are
>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt decider
>>>>> is self-contradictory?
>>>>>
>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to derive
>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>
>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a
>>>> UTM.
>>>> (simulator).
>>>
>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>
>>
>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the
>> answer all those not understanding these things cannot simply
>> baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a
>> basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>
> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting from
> ACCEPTED definition.
>
> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the words.
>
> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one can
> help you with your logic.
>
> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really need to
> give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name with a modifier).
>
> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the accepted
> definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>
> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
> talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider, so you
> counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem, so it is
> clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>
>>
>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that proof?
>>
>
> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using altered
> definition that you aren't providing.
You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an incorrect basis.

--
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 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't
>>>>>>>>>> a Halt
>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build
>>>>>>>> anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to
>>>>> derive
>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>
>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a
>>>>> UTM.
>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the
>>> answer all those not understanding these things cannot simply
>>> baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a
>>> basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>
>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting from
>> ACCEPTED definition.
>>
>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the words.
>>
>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one can
>> help you with your logic.
>>
>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
>> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really need
>> to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name with a
>> modifier).
>>
>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the accepted
>> definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>
>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
>> talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider, so
>> you counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem, so it
>> is clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that proof?
>>>
>>
>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an incorrect basis.
>

I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by DEFINITION gives
the exact same result as P(d).

YOU don't seem to understand that, or have some other (and thus WRONG)
definition of a UTM.

On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>> build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to
>>>>>> derive
>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is
>>>>>> merely
>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the
>>>>>> same as
>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of
>>>>>> a UTM.
>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>
>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the
>>>> answer all those not understanding these things cannot simply
>>>> baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a
>>>> basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no basis and reject
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting
>>> from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>
>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the words.
>>>
>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one can
>>> help you with your logic.
>>>
>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
>>> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really need
>>> to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name with a
>>> modifier).
>>>
>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the accepted
>>> definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>
>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
>>> talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider, so
>>> you counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem, so it
>>> is clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that proof?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an incorrect
>> basis.
>>
>
> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by DEFINITION gives
> the exact same result as P(d).

When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
truthfully deny that the floor is wet.

When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P) would
have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P) this cannot
simply be ignored.

--
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 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>> build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to
>>>>>>> derive
>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is
>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the
>>>>>>> same as
>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of
>>>>>>> a UTM.
>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the
>>>>> answer all those not understanding these things cannot simply
>>>>> baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a
>>>>> basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no basis and
>>>>> reject it.
>>>>
>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting
>>>> from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>
>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the words.
>>>>
>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one
>>>> can help you with your logic.
>>>>
>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
>>>> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really need
>>>> to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name with a
>>>> modifier).
>>>>
>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the accepted
>>>> definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
>>>> talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider, so
>>>> you counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem, so it
>>>> is clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that proof?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>>>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an incorrect
>>> basis.
>>>
>>
>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by DEFINITION
>> gives the exact same result as P(d).
>
> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
> truthfully deny that the floor is wet.

And I haven't

>
> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P) would
> have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P) this cannot
> simply be ignored.
>
>

And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P) Halts.

The H you have defined doesn't DO a complete simulation, so you can't
say anything about the compete simulation it does.

How can you claim the behavior of something that doesn't happen, at
least not the way you claim.

The only machine you have tried to show that does a correct and complete
simulation is a DIFFERENT machine you try to DECEITFULLY call H, but
MUST have a different name, like Hn,or you just make your own logic
inconsistent.

Yes Hn(Pn,Pn) does a complete simulation of its input and shows that
Pn(Pn) is non-halting, but that doesn't say anything about P(P) or the
input to H(P,P)

You are just showing that your logic is broken and inconsistent.

You are claiming that you dumped a glass of water on the floor, but you
didn't actually have one, so the floor didn't get wet.

FAIL.

On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>> build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to
>>>>>>>> derive
>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is
>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the
>>>>>>>> same as
>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition
>>>>>>>> of a UTM.
>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the
>>>>>> answer all those not understanding these things cannot simply
>>>>>> baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a
>>>>>> basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no basis and
>>>>>> reject it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting
>>>>> from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the
>>>>> words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one
>>>>> can help you with your logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
>>>>> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really
>>>>> need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name
>>>>> with a modifier).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the accepted
>>>>> definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
>>>>> talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider, so
>>>>> you counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem, so
>>>>> it is clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that proof?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>>>>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an incorrect
>>>> basis.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by DEFINITION
>>> gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>
>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
>> truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>
> And I haven't
>
>>
>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P) would
>> have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P) this cannot
>> simply be ignored.
>>
>>
>
> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P) Halts.
>

The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops running
unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely another way of
saying that the correct and complete simulation of this input by H never
halts.

The correct and complete simulation of every machine description
necessarily derives the actual behavior of this machine description,
therefore the actual behavior of the input to H(P,P) never halts.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>> build anything which meets the definition. This has been
>>>>>>>>>>>> proved.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that
>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed
>>>>>>>>> to derive
>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is
>>>>>>>>> merely
>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the
>>>>>>>>> same as
>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the
>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition
>>>>>>>>> of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the
>>>>>>> answer all those not understanding these things cannot simply
>>>>>>> baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a
>>>>>>> basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no basis and
>>>>>>> reject it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting
>>>>>> from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the
>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one
>>>>>> can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
>>>>>> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really
>>>>>> need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name
>>>>>> with a modifier).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
>>>>>> talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider,
>>>>>> so you counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem,
>>>>>> so it is clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that
>>>>>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>>>>>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by DEFINITION
>>>> gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>
>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
>>> truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>
>> And I haven't
>>
>>>
>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P) would
>>> have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P) this cannot
>>> simply be ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P) Halts.
>>
>
> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops running
> unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely another way of
> saying that the correct and complete simulation of this input by H never
> halts.

You have bad logic there. The H that you claim gives the correct answer
for H(P,P) doesn't run forever but ALWAYS aborts its simulation of this
input at this point.

It is a DIFFERENT H, Hn, that doesn't abort, and when you change H to
Hn, the way you are doing it, you ALSO change P for Pn, and thus the
simulation that doesn't Halt is not of the same input as was given to
the original H.

>
> The correct and complete simulation of every machine description
> necessarily derives the actual behavior of this machine description,
> therefore the actual behavior of the input to H(P,P) never halts.
>

Right, and the COMPLETE machine decription of the input to H(P,P) will
ALWAYS halt, since H(P,P) return 0.

When you change H to Hn, you also change the input P to Pn, so all you
have done is shown that a DIFFERENT input doesn't halt.

Part of your problem is you don't understand what the input you are
given to H actually is and what it represents.

The input is the FULL x86 byte code of the FULL PROGRAM P, which
included that of H.

If you try to omit that, then your input doesn't actually represent the
program P unless you also include in the definition of the
representation the FULL behavior of H, and thus when you changed H you
broke that requirement.

On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> build anything which meets the definition. This has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that
>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed
>>>>>>>>>> to derive
>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input
>>>>>>>>>> is merely
>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the
>>>>>>>>>> same as
>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the
>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition
>>>>>>>>>> of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind
>>>>>>>> the answer all those not understanding these things cannot
>>>>>>>> simply baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required to
>>>>>>>> have a basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch of
>>>>>>>> baseless disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no
>>>>>>>> basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning, starting
>>>>>>> from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the
>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no one
>>>>>>> can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
>>>>>>> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really
>>>>>>> need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name
>>>>>>> with a modifier).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you are
>>>>>>> talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider,
>>>>>>> so you counter example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem,
>>>>>>> so it is clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that
>>>>>>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>>>>>>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by DEFINITION
>>>>> gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>
>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
>>>> truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>
>>> And I haven't
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P)
>>>> would have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P) this
>>>> cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P) Halts.
>>>
>>
>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely another
>> way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of this input
>> by H never halts.
>
> You have bad logic there.

It is a tautology:

void Infinite_Loop()
{ HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
}

_Infinite_Loop()
[00001102](01) 55 push ebp
[00001103](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001105](02) ebfe jmp 00001105
[00001107](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001108](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]

The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input would
never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this input is
merely another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of
this input by H0 never halts.

On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> build anything which meets the definition. This has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed
>>>>>>>>>>> to derive
>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input
>>>>>>>>>>> is merely
>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a
>>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not
>>>>>>>>>>> the same as
>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the
>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind
>>>>>>>>> the answer all those not understanding these things cannot
>>>>>>>>> simply baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required
>>>>>>>>> to have a basis. This way people are not lead astray by a bunch
>>>>>>>>> of baseless disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no
>>>>>>>>> basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of the
>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no
>>>>>>>> one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well defined
>>>>>>>> meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or you really
>>>>>>>> need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the common name
>>>>>>>> with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you
>>>>>>>> are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting
>>>>>>>> Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect the actual
>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't proven what you
>>>>>>>> claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that
>>>>>>>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>>>>>>>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by DEFINITION
>>>>>> gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>
>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
>>>>> truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>
>>>> And I haven't
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P)
>>>>> would have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P)
>>>>> this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P) Halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely
>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of
>>> this input by H never halts.
>>
>> You have bad logic there.
>
> It is a tautology:
>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>   HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
> }
>
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>
> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input would
> never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this input is
> merely another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of
> this input by H0 never halts.
>

On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to build anything which meets the definition. This has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>> is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the
>>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind
>>>>>>>>>> the answer all those not understanding these things cannot
>>>>>>>>>> simply baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required
>>>>>>>>>> to have a basis. This way people are not lead astray by a
>>>>>>>>>> bunch of baseless disagreement, they see that the disagreement
>>>>>>>>>> has no basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of
>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no
>>>>>>>>> one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or
>>>>>>>>> you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on the
>>>>>>>>> common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you
>>>>>>>>> are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting
>>>>>>>>> Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect the actual
>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't proven what you
>>>>>>>>> claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly using
>>>>>>>>> altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
>>>>>> truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P)
>>>>>> would have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P)
>>>>>> this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P) Halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>>>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely
>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of
>>>> this input by H never halts.
>>>
>>> You have bad logic there.
>>
>> It is a tautology:
>>
>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>> }
>>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>
>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input would
>> never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this input is
>> merely another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation
>> of this input by H0 never halts.
>>
>
> Strawman.
>
> Fallacy of Proof by Example.

On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to build anything which meets the definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind
>>>>>>>>>>> the answer all those not understanding these things cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> simply baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus required
>>>>>>>>>>> to have a basis. This way people are not lead astray by a
>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of baseless disagreement, they see that the
>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of
>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no
>>>>>>>>>> one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or
>>>>>>>>>> you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on
>>>>>>>>>> the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you
>>>>>>>>>> are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting
>>>>>>>>>> Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect the actual
>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't proven what you
>>>>>>>>>> claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition is self-contradictory. You're not disputing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly
>>>>>>>>>> using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you cannot
>>>>>>> truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P)
>>>>>>> would have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P)
>>>>>>> this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P) Halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>>>>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely
>>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of
>>>>> this input by H never halts.
>>>>
>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>
>>> It is a tautology:
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>> }
>>>
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>
>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input would
>>> never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this input is
>>> merely another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation
>>> of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>
>>
>> Strawman.
>>
>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>
> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is not
> representative of the entire class of all such examples.

On 9/3/2022 6:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a Halt
>>> Decider.
>>>
>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least one of
>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>
> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>
> You are arguing that the proof is not correct. However, you feel free to change or reject the definition so you are not talking about the same subject.

Parmenides, born 515BC, was credited with making this argument. It went
approximately like this:

words must reference something;

If the thing referenced does not exist, a word is meaningless;

We define things by both properties it does have and, primarily, by the
properties it doesn't have - the latter chip away that it is not;

Since we cannot know a negative, all the universe is one thing, unmoving
and unchanging for all time.

This argument was embedded in an ancient poem (The Charioteer) of which
scraps were found. This conundrum persisted until Plato developed his
"Theory of Forms" to salvage linguistics from this dilemma. In one of
the Socratic dialectics, Parmenides is his "sparring" partner to debate
this problem. It is the only dialectic that Socrates doesn't overwhelm
the other. It showed an immense respect for Parmenides.

In any event this is a problem covered in great detail in linguistic and
epistemology theories developed in the last two millennia.

More info available under the headings of semantics, hermeneutics,
epistemology, and ontology.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to build anything which meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the answer all those not understanding these things
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot simply baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus
>>>>>>>>>>>> required to have a basis. This way people are not lead
>>>>>>>>>>>> astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words, no
>>>>>>>>>>> one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or
>>>>>>>>>>> you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on
>>>>>>>>>>> the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that you
>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a PO-Halting
>>>>>>>>>>> Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't proven what you
>>>>>>>>>>> claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition is self-contradictory. You're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly
>>>>>>>>>>> using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you
>>>>>>>> cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P)
>>>>>>>> would have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P)
>>>>>>>> this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>>>>>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely
>>>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of
>>>>>> this input by H never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>
>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>
>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>> {
>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input would
>>>> never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this input is
>>>> merely another way of saying that the correct and complete
>>>> simulation of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Strawman.
>>>
>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>
>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is not
>> representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>
> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>
>>
>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>> quantification.
>
> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL inputs (or at
> least P, which isn't the input you showed it worked for).
>
>>
>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>> ∀ machine description P
>
> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>
> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>
>>
>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any simulating
>> halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running unless this simulation
>> was aborted by this SHD is merely another way of saying that the
>> correct and complete simulation of this input by this SHD would never
>> stop running.
>>
>
> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider in the
> way you are doing it.

On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to build anything which meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the answer all those not understanding these things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot simply baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to have a basis. This way people are not lead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words,
>>>>>>>>>>>> no one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning, or
>>>>>>>>>>>> you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a
>>>>>>>>>>>> PO-Halting Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect
>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>> proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition is self-contradictory. You're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>> using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you
>>>>>>>>> cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> would have different behavior than the direct execution of P(P)
>>>>>>>>> this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>>>>>>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely
>>>>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation of
>>>>>>> this input by H never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input
>>>>> would never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this
>>>>> input is merely another way of saying that the correct and complete
>>>>> simulation of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Strawman.
>>>>
>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>
>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is not
>>> representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>>
>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>>
>>>
>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>>> quantification.
>>
>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL inputs (or
>> at least P, which isn't the input you showed it worked for).
>>
>>>
>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>>> ∀ machine description P
>>
>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>>
>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any simulating
>>> halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running unless this simulation
>>> was aborted by this SHD is merely another way of saying that the
>>> correct and complete simulation of this input by this SHD would never
>>> stop running.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider in the
>> way you are doing it.
>
> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its decider
> *NITWIT*

On 9/3/2022 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to build anything which meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the answer all those not understanding these things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot simply baselessly disagree. All disagreement is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus required to have a basis. This way people are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe basd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO-Halting Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition is self-contradictory. You're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you
>>>>>>>>>> cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by
>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would have different behavior than the direct execution
>>>>>>>>>> of P(P) this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>>>>>>>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely
>>>>>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>> of this input by H never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input
>>>>>> would never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this
>>>>>> input is merely another way of saying that the correct and
>>>>>> complete simulation of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>
>>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is
>>>> not representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>>>
>>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>>>> quantification.
>>>
>>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL inputs (or
>>> at least P, which isn't the input you showed it worked for).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>>>> ∀ machine description P
>>>
>>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any
>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running unless this
>>>> simulation was aborted by this SHD is merely another way of saying
>>>> that the correct and complete simulation of this input by this SHD
>>>> would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider in
>>> the way you are doing it.
>>
>> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its decider
>> *NITWIT*
>
> Right, but your "example" didn't, and this dependency is the case that
> breaks your "proof" and definitions.
The correct simulation of the input by H(P,P) is the simulation of this
input at the same point in the execution trace where H is invoked.

On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a Halt
> >>>>>>> Decider.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least one of
> >>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
> >>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions are
> >>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
> >>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
> >>>
> >> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to derive
> >> the actual behavior of this input.
> >>
> >> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
> >> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
> >> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
> >> input by this SHD would never stop running.
> >>
> >> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
> >> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
> >> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
> >> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
> >> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a UTM.
> >> (simulator).
> >
> > I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
> >
> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the answer
> all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.

Yes, it is helpful to provide reasoning behind your answers.

However, I can't actually tell from your reasoning what your actual answer is. Do you, or do you not, accept that the official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?

On 9/3/22 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to build anything which meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the answer all those not understanding these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things cannot simply baselessly disagree. All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basd on the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO-Halting Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the definition is self-contradictory. You're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would have different behavior than the direct
>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P) this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never stops
>>>>>>>>> running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is merely
>>>>>>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>>> of this input by H never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input
>>>>>>> would never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this
>>>>>>> input is merely another way of saying that the correct and
>>>>>>> complete simulation of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strawman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is
>>>>> not representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>>>>
>>>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>>>>> quantification.
>>>>
>>>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL inputs (or
>>>> at least P, which isn't the input you showed it worked for).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>>>>> ∀ machine description P
>>>>
>>>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any
>>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running unless
>>>>> this simulation was aborted by this SHD is merely another way of
>>>>> saying that the correct and complete simulation of this input by
>>>>> this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider in
>>>> the way you are doing it.
>>>
>>> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its decider
>>> *NITWIT*
>>
>> Right, but your "example" didn't, and this dependency is the case that
>> breaks your "proof" and definitions.
> The correct simulation of the input by H(P,P) is the simulation of this
> input at the same point in the execution trace where H is invoked.
>
> (2 + 3) * 5   !=   2 + (3 * 5) // order matters.
>
>

On 9/3/2022 12:19 PM, Paul N wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least one of
>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions are
>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>
>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to derive
>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>
>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>
>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a UTM.
>>>> (simulator).
>>>
>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>
>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the answer
>> all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
>> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
>> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>
> Yes, it is helpful to provide reasoning behind your answers.
>
> However, I can't actually tell from your reasoning what your actual answer is. Do you, or do you not, accept that the official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?

(a) In the case where the behavior of an input must be aborted to
prevent the infinite simulation of this input this is merely another way
of saying that the correct and complete simulation by H(P,P) of its
input never halts.

(b) The definition of a UTM says that the correct and complete
simulation of a machine description derives the actual behavior
specified by this machine description.

(c) A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite
strings to an accept or reject state based on the actual behavior
specified by this finite string machine description.

(a)(b)(c) proves H(P,P)==0 is correct and anything (or anyone) that
disagrees is incorrect.

--
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 9/3/2022 12:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/22 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to build anything which meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the answer all those not understanding these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things cannot simply baselessly disagree. All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, no one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basd on the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO-Halting Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the definition is self-contradictory. You're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would have different behavior than the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P) this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never
>>>>>>>>>> stops running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is
>>>>>>>>>> merely another way of saying that the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>> simulation of this input by H never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input
>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this
>>>>>>>> input is merely another way of saying that the correct and
>>>>>>>> complete simulation of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strawman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is
>>>>>> not representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>>>>>> quantification.
>>>>>
>>>>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL inputs
>>>>> (or at least P, which isn't the input you showed it worked for).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>>>>>> ∀ machine description P
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any
>>>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running unless
>>>>>> this simulation was aborted by this SHD is merely another way of
>>>>>> saying that the correct and complete simulation of this input by
>>>>>> this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider in
>>>>> the way you are doing it.
>>>>
>>>> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its decider
>>>> *NITWIT*
>>>
>>> Right, but your "example" didn't, and this dependency is the case
>>> that breaks your "proof" and definitions.
>> The correct simulation of the input by H(P,P) is the simulation of
>> this input at the same point in the execution trace where H is invoked.
>>
>> (2 + 3) * 5   !=   2 + (3 * 5) // order matters.
>>
>>
>
> Red Herring. Simulate(P,P) is ALWAYS the same (for a given P)
> irrespective of "where" that simulation is done,

On 9/3/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 12:19 PM, Paul N wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't
>>>>>>>>>> a Halt
>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build
>>>>>>>> anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to
>>>>> derive
>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>
>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a
>>>>> UTM.
>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>
>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the answer
>>> all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
>>> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
>>> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>
>> Yes, it is helpful to provide reasoning behind your answers.
>>
>> However, I can't actually tell from your reasoning what your actual
>> answer is. Do you, or do you not, accept that the official definition
>> of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>
> (a) In the case where the behavior of an input must be aborted to
> prevent the infinite simulation of this input this is merely another way
> of saying that the correct and complete simulation by H(P,P) of its
> input never halts.

But we don't know if the input "must be aborted" by your proof.

You use that UTM(Pn,Pn), based on the Hn that doesn't abort, to make the
decision. You NEED to use UTM(P,P) to decide.

The problem is you have incorrectly intertwined your definition of the
deciding H with the H that P calls.

FAIL.

>
> (b) The definition of a UTM says that the correct and complete
> simulation of a machine description derives the actual behavior
> specified by this machine description.

Right, but the UTM needs to be given the ACTUAL INPUT that it is
supposed to simulate. Since you changed the H to Hn, you also changed P
to Pn, so you aren't simulationg the right input.

>
> (c) A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite
> strings to an accept or reject state based on the actual behavior
> specified by this finite string machine description.

RIght the ACTAUL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL input, which is UTM(P,P) where
that P calls the exact equivalent of the H that is claimed to be
correct, which is the one that aborts.

>
> (a)(b)(c) proves H(P,P)==0 is correct and anything (or anyone) that
> disagrees is incorrect.
>

WRONG.

On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 6:34:24 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 12:19 PM, Paul N wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a Halt
> >>>>>>>>> Decider.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least one of
> >>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
> >>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions are
> >>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
> >>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
> >>>>>
> >>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to derive
> >>>> the actual behavior of this input.
> >>>>
> >>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
> >>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
> >>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
> >>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
> >>>>
> >>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
> >>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
> >>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
> >>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
> >>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a UTM.
> >>>> (simulator).
> >>>
> >>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
> >>>
> >> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the answer
> >> all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
> >> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
> >> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
> >> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
> >
> > Yes, it is helpful to provide reasoning behind your answers.
> >
> > However, I can't actually tell from your reasoning what your actual answer is. Do you, or do you not, accept that the official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
> (a) In the case where the behavior of an input must be aborted to
> prevent the infinite simulation of this input this is merely another way
> of saying that the correct and complete simulation by H(P,P) of its
> input never halts.
>
> (b) The definition of a UTM says that the correct and complete
> simulation of a machine description derives the actual behavior
> specified by this machine description.
> (c) A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite
> strings to an accept or reject state based on the actual behavior
> specified by this finite string machine description.
>
> (a)(b)(c) proves H(P,P)==0 is correct and anything (or anyone) that
> disagrees is incorrect.

You're actually incapable of saying yes or no?

On 9/3/22 1:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2022 12:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/3/22 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2022 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is impossible to build anything which meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the answer all those not understanding these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things cannot simply baselessly disagree. All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, no one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning, or you really need to give your idea a new name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (maybe basd on the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a PO-Halting Decider, so you counter example doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the actual Halting Problem, so it is clear you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the definition is self-contradictory. You're
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would have different behavior than the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P) this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never
>>>>>>>>>>> stops running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is
>>>>>>>>>>> merely another way of saying that the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of this input by H never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input
>>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of
>>>>>>>>> this input is merely another way of saying that the correct and
>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strawman.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is
>>>>>>> not representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>>>>>>> quantification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL inputs
>>>>>> (or at least P, which isn't the input you showed it worked for).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>>>>>>> ∀ machine description P
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any
>>>>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running unless
>>>>>>> this simulation was aborted by this SHD is merely another way of
>>>>>>> saying that the correct and complete simulation of this input by
>>>>>>> this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider in
>>>>>> the way you are doing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its
>>>>> decider *NITWIT*
>>>>
>>>> Right, but your "example" didn't, and this dependency is the case
>>>> that breaks your "proof" and definitions.
>>> The correct simulation of the input by H(P,P) is the simulation of
>>> this input at the same point in the execution trace where H is invoked.
>>>
>>> (2 + 3) * 5   !=   2 + (3 * 5) // order matters.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Red Herring. Simulate(P,P) is ALWAYS the same (for a given P)
>> irrespective of "where" that simulation is done,
>
> That is proven to be counter-factual.

On 9/3/2022 12:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 9/3/22 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 12:19 PM, Paul N wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at
>>>>>>>>>> least one of
>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt
>>>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to
>>>>>>>>> build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official
>>>>>>>> definitions are
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt
>>>>>>> decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to
>>>>>> derive
>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the
>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is
>>>>>> merely
>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the
>>>>>> same as
>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of
>>>>>> a UTM.
>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>
>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>
>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the
>>>> answer
>>>> all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
>>>> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>>>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they
>>>> see
>>>> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is helpful to provide reasoning behind your answers.
>>>
>>> However, I can't actually tell from your reasoning what your actual
>>> answer is. Do you, or do you not, accept that the official definition
>>> of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>
>> (a) In the case where the behavior of an input must be aborted to
>> prevent the infinite simulation of this input this is merely another
>> way of saying that the correct and complete simulation by H(P,P) of
>> its input never halts.
>
> But we don't know if the input "must be aborted" by your proof.
Every proof that I provide you find some dishonest dodge for a dishonest
fake rebuttal.

The bigger question is when we both know that the input to H(P,P)
correctly simulated by H never stops unless H aborts its simulation

WHY THE HELL DO YOU DENY SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW IS TRUE?

--
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 9/3/2022 12:52 PM, Paul N wrote:
> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 6:34:24 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 12:19 PM, Paul N wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 3:14:51 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your H just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is impossible to build anything which meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the official definitions are
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight on that another
>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is guaranteed to derive
>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must abort the simulation
>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input is merely
>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete simulation of the
>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior that a halt
>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is not the same as
>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then the computer
>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the definition of a UTM.
>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>
>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>
>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning behind the answer
>>>> all those not understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
>>>> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>>>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement, they see
>>>> that the disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is helpful to provide reasoning behind your answers.
>>>
>>> However, I can't actually tell from your reasoning what your actual answer is. Do you, or do you not, accept that the official definition of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>> (a) In the case where the behavior of an input must be aborted to
>> prevent the infinite simulation of this input this is merely another way
>> of saying that the correct and complete simulation by H(P,P) of its
>> input never halts.
>>
>> (b) The definition of a UTM says that the correct and complete
>> simulation of a machine description derives the actual behavior
>> specified by this machine description.
>> (c) A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite
>> strings to an accept or reject state based on the actual behavior
>> specified by this finite string machine description.
>>
>> (a)(b)(c) proves H(P,P)==0 is correct and anything (or anyone) that
>> disagrees is incorrect.
>
> You're actually incapable of saying yes or no?

You are incapable of correctly inferring Yes or No based on what I said
above?

If I say Yes or No it is possible to baselessly disagree.
When I provide only the reasoning for Yes or No it is impossible to
baselessly disagree.

When we ask a Trump supporter to provide any evidence submitted in any
of Trump's election fraud court cases that proves that election fraud
occurred they can only STFU because there was no evidence ever submitted
in any of these cases. Trump's lawyers did not want to go to prison for
perjury and had no actual evidence to submit.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer