On 9/29/22 7:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/29/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/29/22 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/29/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/29/22 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 3:05 PM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:43:26 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 11:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:10:01 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <non...@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/2022 3:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 10:49:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And your decider doesn't do that so it isn't a halt decider,
>>>>>>>>>> it is a
>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation decider. Real halt deciders return a
>>>>>>>>>> decision
>>>>>>>>>> to their caller in finite time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My code speaks for itself, thus conclusively proves that you don't
>>>>>>>>> have a clue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your code speaks for itself: it doesn't meet the functional
>>>>>>>> requirements of a halt decider. You don't have a clue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You simply don't have the mental discipline to pay enough
>>>>>>> attention to
>>>>>>> understand my rebuttals of your claims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to a final
>>>>>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>> specified by
>>>>>>> these inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. You keep trying to pull a sleight-of-hand by saying that what
>>>>>> counts is not the actual behaviour but what a correct simulation
>>>>>> would do. This is not actually correct because P cannot be
>>>>>> simulated properly. You then say that your simulation is correct,
>>>>>> despite it giving the wrong answers. You justify that by claiming
>>>>>> that no-one has found a flaw in it, despite several people
>>>>>> pointing out the flaws numerous times, which you wave away by
>>>>>> claiming, with no proof, that they are all wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I HAVE ALREADY BEEN THOUGH THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES
>>>>> It is easily verified that the simulation is correct in that the
>>>>> simulated x86 instructions exactly match what their x86 source-code
>>>>> specifies.
>>>>
>>>> Except it is only a PARTIAL simulation, so it ony PARTIALLY
>>>> determines the behavior of the input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For Infinite_Loop(), Infinite_Recursion(int N) and P(ptr x), H does
>>> correctly determine that none of these will ever reach their own
>>> final state and halt in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation. It does
>>> this by matching a correct non-halting behavior pattern in a finite
>>> number of steps.
>>
>> So, it used valid logic from the partial simulation to prove that
>> those are non-haoting pattern. There is no valid logic that shows that
>> P(P) is non-halting, since any pattern detected and aborted on makes
>> P(P) Halting.
>>
>
> You were the one to come up with a specific term for the idea that an
> aborted simulation does not mean that this input halts.

So you think that an aborted simulation mean the input doesn't halt?

Remember, the behavior that the Halt Decider is to decide on is the
behavor of the ACTUAL machine the input represents, and that doens't
stop until it reachs a final state.

>
> You know that every Px element of the Hx/Px pairs correctly simulated or
> directly executed by Hx never halts. That you persist in lying about
> this could cause you to end up on Satan's team.
>

So, the only Px that ARE completely and correctly simulated are those
that use a Hx that does the complete simulation, and I admit that the Px
for those will not halt, but those Hx never give an answer so are not
correct.

NONE of these represent a Hx that answers 0 from Hx(Px,Px) for the Px
built on it.

> If you can comprehend the infinite recursion non-halting behavior
> pattern is correct then you can equally comprehend that the recursive
> simulation non-halting behavior pattern is correct it applies the exact
> same criteria.
>

Which "Infinite recursion non-halting behavior pattern" are you talking
about? The only ones you have demostarted are based on Hx's that NEVER
abort.

> If you CANNOT comprehend the infinite recursion non-halting behavior
> pattern is correct then this stuff is simply over your head.
>
>

There ARE correct infinite recursion behavior patterns, and they exist
in the Px/Hx pairs where Hx never aborts.

YOU are the one over your head in that you can't see to simple fact that
if Hx does abort its simulation and return 0, that it does NOT create an
infinte behavior, as it doesn't run forever.

You seem to not be able to distiguish between things that has SOME
simularity, but also have some differences.

That seems to be your fatal flaw. You have chosen to be ignorant about
these facts and thus have just wasted the LAST 18 years of your life and
buried your reputation under the pile of FALSEHOOD that you have made.

FAIL.