On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of every finite
>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to always
>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of the
>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any finite set of
>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue with any
>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make an
>>>>> uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>
>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of inputs.
>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs deriving a single
>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this as sums
>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>
>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime factors of
>>> its input it the same machine that computes its inputs factorial?
>>>
>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to outputs?
>>>
>>
>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite set of
>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>
>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits that
>>>> cannot be
>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>
>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing mapping of
>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite set of
>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no such issue
>> for summing or halt status detection.
>
> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one example
> out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>
> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all can be.
>
>>
>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>
> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical Pathological Lying
> Idiot.
>

As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem because
gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes you
look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.

There can be no countability issue with computing the mapping
from a finite set of finite string inputs to their corresponding output
for any arbitrary finite string inputs or computation.

A counter-example is categorically impossible.
Try and show any finite set of finite strings that cannot be summed.

> That statement must be true, because it only makes an assurtion if it is
> true,
>
> Thus you ARE a Hypocritical Pathological Lying Idiot.
>
> You are just proving you like to make all the mistakes that history has
> found in logic, because you refuse to learn from it.
>
>>
>>>
>>> You are just proving you are totally ignorant of what you are talking
>>> about.
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of every finite
>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to always
>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of the
>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any finite
>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue with any
>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make an
>>>>>> uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>
>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of inputs.
>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs deriving a
>>>>> single
>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this as sums
>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime factors
>>>> of its input it the same machine that computes its inputs factorial?
>>>>
>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to outputs?
>>>>
>>>
>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite set of
>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>
>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits that
>>>>> cannot be
>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>
>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing mapping of
>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite set of
>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no such issue
>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>
>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one example
>> out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>
>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all can be.
>>
>>>
>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>
>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical Pathological
>> Lying Idiot.
>>
>
> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem because
> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes you
> look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.

No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.

Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use it as
one of your truth makers that can make it true. This is not an allowed
operation, as if you do, then you get that exact same arguement I was using.

So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST& accept that
mine is too, and thus you are what I said.

The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid anyway
independent of validity of the statement.

In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches back to
some base truth makers, but also links back to itself. This leads to an
infinite loop in the connection logic, where there is always a piece of
the connection not connected to things alreayd known to be truth makers,
so the statement has never been established as True, which requires that
ALL neccessary premises for the statement be connected to know truth makers.

This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the premise to
the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a loop, thinking it
has been established, when it is just a floating island of unsupported
logic. If you start at the Truth Makers, you can't run into this
problem, as you never had the presumptive statement available to
incorrectly use.

>
> There can be no countability issue with computing the mapping
> from a finite set of finite string inputs to their corresponding output
> for any arbitrary finite string inputs or computation.

??? I don't think you know what you are saying here.

>
> A counter-example is categorically impossible.
> Try and show any finite set of finite strings that cannot be summed.

Maybe, because you are saying something meaningless, just a bunch of
word salad.

The counting arguement is comparing the number of POSSIBLE Turing
Machines which could be deciders, which is a countable infinity, because
every Turing Machine can be encoded into a unique finite string, which
can be an treated as the encoding of a number.

The other set, is the set of all functions that might need to be
decided. This would be the set of all the mappings from the Natural
Numbers (reperesenting the string inputs to a decider) to all possible
combinations of 0 and 1. This set is an uncountable infinite. (The count
of finite subsets isn't enough, as that would requre that the number of
1's (or 0's) in the map be finite, but there are an uncountable infinite
number of maps with an infinite number of 0 outputs and 1 outputs.

So, the output set that we are looking at is NOT comparable to the
finite subset concept.

On 1/28/2023 7:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of every finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to always
>>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any finite
>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue with any
>>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make an
>>>>>>> uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>>
>>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of inputs.
>>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs deriving a
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this as sums
>>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime factors
>>>>> of its input it the same machine that computes its inputs factorial?
>>>>>
>>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to outputs?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite set of
>>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits that
>>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>>
>>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing mapping of
>>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite set of
>>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no such issue
>>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>>
>>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one
>>> example out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>>
>>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all can be.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>>
>>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical Pathological
>>> Lying Idiot.
>>>
>>
>> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem because
>> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes you
>> look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.
>
> No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.
>
> Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use it as
> one of your truth makers that can make it true.  This is not an allowed
> operation, as if you do, then you get that exact same arguement I was
> using.
>
> So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST& accept that
> mine is too, and thus you are what I said.
>
> The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid anyway
> independent of validity of the statement.
>
> In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches back to
> some base truth makers, but also links back to itself. This leads to an
> infinite loop in the connection logic, where there is always a piece of
> the connection not connected to things alreayd known to be truth makers,
> so the statement has never been established as True, which requires that
> ALL neccessary premises for the statement be connected to know truth
> makers.
>
> This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the premise to
> the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a loop, thinking it
> has been established, when it is just a floating island of unsupported
> logic. If you start at the Truth Makers, you can't run into this
> problem, as you never had the presumptive statement available to
> incorrectly use.
>

A counter-example to my reasoning does not exist.

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
knowing those meanings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

This is correctly paraphrased as

Analytical truth is the connection from an expression X of formal or
natural language L using truth preserving operations to expressions of L
that have been stipulated to be true.

We know that cat are animals is true entirely on the basis of the
meaning of the words. The meaning of words are expressions of L that
have been stipulated to be true.

>>
>> There can be no countability issue with computing the mapping
>> from a finite set of finite string inputs to their corresponding output
>> for any arbitrary finite string inputs or computation.
>
> ??? I don't think you know what you are saying here.
>
>>
>> A counter-example is categorically impossible.
>> Try and show any finite set of finite strings that cannot be summed.
>
> Maybe, because you are saying something meaningless, just a bunch of
> word salad.
>

If there is a countability issue with calculating the sum of arbitrary
finite sets of finite strings of ASCII digits that prevented a correct
sum from being calculated then there would be an element of this set
that cannot be summed.

Not being able to count all of the sets of finite strings to be summed
in no way prevents any element of the sets of finite strings from being
correctly summed, thus has no impact on computability.

As long as a TM can correctly determine the sum of any arbitrary finite
set of finite strings of ASCII digits then sum is computable.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/23 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2023 7:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to always
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any finite
>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue with any
>>>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make an
>>>>>>>> uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of inputs.
>>>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs deriving a
>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this as
>>>>>>> sums
>>>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime factors
>>>>>> of its input it the same machine that computes its inputs factorial?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to outputs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite set of
>>>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits that
>>>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing mapping of
>>>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite set of
>>>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no such issue
>>>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>>>
>>>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one
>>>> example out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>>>
>>>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all can be.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>>>
>>>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical Pathological
>>>> Lying Idiot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem because
>>> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes you
>>> look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.
>>
>> No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.
>>
>> Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use it as
>> one of your truth makers that can make it true.  This is not an
>> allowed operation, as if you do, then you get that exact same
>> arguement I was using.
>>
>> So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST& accept
>> that mine is too, and thus you are what I said.
>>
>> The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid anyway
>> independent of validity of the statement.
>>
>> In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches back to
>> some base truth makers, but also links back to itself. This leads to
>> an infinite loop in the connection logic, where there is always a
>> piece of the connection not connected to things alreayd known to be
>> truth makers, so the statement has never been established as True,
>> which requires that ALL neccessary premises for the statement be
>> connected to know truth makers.
>>
>> This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the premise
>> to the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a loop,
>> thinking it has been established, when it is just a floating island of
>> unsupported logic. If you start at the Truth Makers, you can't run
>> into this problem, as you never had the presumptive statement
>> available to incorrectly use.
>>
>
> A counter-example to my reasoning does not exist.
>

Nope, I have given it.

> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
> knowing those meanings.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

Right, and a sentence that depends on its own truth value (like if H
returns the right value ...) are proved to be able to lead to
cotradictipons.

>
> This is correctly paraphrased as
>
> Analytical truth is the connection from an expression X of formal or
> natural language L using truth preserving operations to expressions of L
> that have been stipulated to be true.

Right, and you can not create such a chain to the statement you are making.

>
> We know that cat are animals is true entirely on the basis of the
> meaning of the words. The meaning of words are expressions of L that
> have been stipulated to be true.

So. Red Herring. Means nothing about the error of using a statement that
references its own truth.

Your statement that H can do xxx if H correctly decides yyy is a
statement of the class that has been proven to lead to logical paradoxes.

Such a statement can never be actually connected to previously accepted
truth makers unless you can prove INDEPENDENTLY of that statement that H
does give a correct decision.

The fact that we know, by definition, that H(D,D) must be 1 to be
correct if D(D) halts, and that if H(D,D) is 0 that D(D) will halt (and
thus by the previosu rule, it is incorrect), we can prove that H(D,D)
returing 0 for this D is INCORRECT, and thus your statement that assumes
it is correct is in error.

As I have said, until you can show that main -> D(D) -> H(D,D) somehow
can give a different result than main -> H(D,D) while still having
H(D,D) be the required pure function/computation, you are just admitting
you claim is just a hypocritical pathogical idiotic lie.

On 1/28/2023 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/23 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2023 7:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any finite
>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue with any
>>>>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make an
>>>>>>>>> uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of
>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs deriving a
>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this as
>>>>>>>> sums
>>>>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime
>>>>>>> factors of its input it the same machine that computes its inputs
>>>>>>> factorial?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to outputs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite set of
>>>>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits that
>>>>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing
>>>>>> mapping of
>>>>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite set of
>>>>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no such
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one
>>>>> example out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all can
>>>>> be.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical Pathological
>>>>> Lying Idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem
>>>> because
>>>> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes
>>>> you look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.
>>>
>>> No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.
>>>
>>> Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use it
>>> as one of your truth makers that can make it true.  This is not an
>>> allowed operation, as if you do, then you get that exact same
>>> arguement I was using.
>>>
>>> So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST& accept
>>> that mine is too, and thus you are what I said.
>>>
>>> The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid anyway
>>> independent of validity of the statement.
>>>
>>> In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches back to
>>> some base truth makers, but also links back to itself. This leads to
>>> an infinite loop in the connection logic, where there is always a
>>> piece of the connection not connected to things alreayd known to be
>>> truth makers, so the statement has never been established as True,
>>> which requires that ALL neccessary premises for the statement be
>>> connected to know truth makers.
>>>
>>> This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the premise
>>> to the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a loop,
>>> thinking it has been established, when it is just a floating island
>>> of unsupported logic. If you start at the Truth Makers, you can't run
>>> into this problem, as you never had the presumptive statement
>>> available to incorrectly use.
>>>
>>
>> A counter-example to my reasoning does not exist.
>>
>
> Nope, I have given it.
>
>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>> knowing those meanings.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>
> Right, and a sentence that depends on its own truth value (like if H
> returns the right value ...) are proved to be able to lead to
> cotradictipons.
>
>>
>> This is correctly paraphrased as
>>
>> Analytical truth is the connection from an expression X of formal or
>> natural language L using truth preserving operations to expressions of L
>> that have been stipulated to be true.
>
> Right, and you can not create such a chain to the statement you are making.
>
>>
>> We know that cat are animals is true entirely on the basis of the
>> meaning of the words. The meaning of words are expressions of L that
>> have been stipulated to be true.
>
> So. Red Herring. Means nothing about the error of using a statement that
> references its own truth.
>
> Your statement that H can do xxx if H correctly decides yyy is a
> statement of the class that has been proven to lead to logical paradoxes.
>
> Such a statement can never be actually connected to previously accepted
> truth makers unless you can prove INDEPENDENTLY of that statement that H
> does give a correct decision.
>
> The fact that we know, by definition, that H(D,D) must be 1 to be
> correct if D(D) halts,

On 1/28/23 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2023 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/23 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2023 7:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any
>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of
>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue with
>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make an
>>>>>>>>>> uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of
>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs deriving
>>>>>>>>> a single
>>>>>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this
>>>>>>>>> as sums
>>>>>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime
>>>>>>>> factors of its input it the same machine that computes its
>>>>>>>> inputs factorial?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>>>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to outputs?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite set of
>>>>>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits that
>>>>>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing
>>>>>>> mapping of
>>>>>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite
>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no such
>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one
>>>>>> example out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all
>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical Pathological
>>>>>> Lying Idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem
>>>>> because
>>>>> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes
>>>>> you look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.
>>>>
>>>> No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.
>>>>
>>>> Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use it
>>>> as one of your truth makers that can make it true.  This is not an
>>>> allowed operation, as if you do, then you get that exact same
>>>> arguement I was using.
>>>>
>>>> So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST& accept
>>>> that mine is too, and thus you are what I said.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid
>>>> anyway independent of validity of the statement.
>>>>
>>>> In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches back
>>>> to some base truth makers, but also links back to itself. This leads
>>>> to an infinite loop in the connection logic, where there is always a
>>>> piece of the connection not connected to things alreayd known to be
>>>> truth makers, so the statement has never been established as True,
>>>> which requires that ALL neccessary premises for the statement be
>>>> connected to know truth makers.
>>>>
>>>> This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the premise
>>>> to the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a loop,
>>>> thinking it has been established, when it is just a floating island
>>>> of unsupported logic. If you start at the Truth Makers, you can't
>>>> run into this problem, as you never had the presumptive statement
>>>> available to incorrectly use.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A counter-example to my reasoning does not exist.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, I have given it.
>>
>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>>> knowing those meanings.
>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>
>> Right, and a sentence that depends on its own truth value (like if H
>> returns the right value ...) are proved to be able to lead to
>> cotradictipons.
>>
>>>
>>> This is correctly paraphrased as
>>>
>>> Analytical truth is the connection from an expression X of formal or
>>> natural language L using truth preserving operations to expressions of L
>>> that have been stipulated to be true.
>>
>> Right, and you can not create such a chain to the statement you are
>> making.
>>
>>>
>>> We know that cat are animals is true entirely on the basis of the
>>> meaning of the words. The meaning of words are expressions of L that
>>> have been stipulated to be true.
>>
>> So. Red Herring. Means nothing about the error of using a statement
>> that references its own truth.
>>
>> Your statement that H can do xxx if H correctly decides yyy is a
>> statement of the class that has been proven to lead to logical paradoxes.
>>
>> Such a statement can never be actually connected to previously
>> accepted truth makers unless you can prove INDEPENDENTLY of that
>> statement that H does give a correct decision.
>>
>> The fact that we know, by definition, that H(D,D) must be 1 to be
>> correct if D(D) halts,
>
> *Changing the subject away from the following is a dishonest dodge*
>
> When the first seven instructions of D are correctly simulated by H it
> can be seen that the simulated D would never stop running unless aborted
> by H.
>
> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112ae5
> Address_of_H:1383
>  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>  address   address   data      code       language
>  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [000019b3][00112ad1][00112ad5] 55         push ebp       // begin D
> [000019b4][00112ad1][00112ad5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000019b6][00112acd][00102aa1] 51         push ecx
> [000019b7][00112acd][00102aa1] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000019ba][00112ac9][000019b3] 50         push eax       // push D
> [000019bb][00112ac9][000019b3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000019be][00112ac5][000019b3] 51         push ecx       // push D
> [000019bf][00112ac1][000019c4] e8bff9ffff call 00001383  // call H
> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> *D only stops running when H aborts its simulation of D*
>
>>> If there is a countability issue with calculating the sum of arbitrary
>>> finite sets of finite strings of ASCII digits that prevented a correct
>>> sum from being calculated then there would be an element of this set
>>> that cannot be summed.
>>
>> No, you don't understand countability, and are trying to apply it to a
>> Red Herring. You seem to think that "Computation" == "Sum", which is
>> just a proof of your ignorance.
>>
>>>
>>> Not being able to count all of the sets of finite strings to be summed
>>> in no way prevents any element of the sets of finite strings from being
>>> correctly summed, thus has no impact on computability.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't the set of finite strings that is uncountable, it is the set
>> of mappings every finite string individualy to 0 or 1 that is
>> uncountable.
>>
>
> You are restricting the set of natural number sums to 1 and 0?

On 1/28/23 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

> *D only stops running when H aborts its simulation of D*

Which since H Does (incorrectly) abort its simulation, D does stop running.

Note, The simulation that a given H aborts is not of the instance of D
that is calling it, but a seperate instance that is just identical

Thus, D does Halt and H is incorrect in aborting its simulation.

Of course, if you change H, you have a totally DIFFERENT problem and a
different D, since the Program D being decided on includes the H it is
built on.

On 1/28/2023 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/23 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2023 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/23 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2023 7:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue
>>>>>>>>>>>> with any
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make
>>>>>>>>>>> an uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs deriving
>>>>>>>>>> a single
>>>>>>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this
>>>>>>>>>> as sums
>>>>>>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime
>>>>>>>>> factors of its input it the same machine that computes its
>>>>>>>>> inputs factorial?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>>>>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to outputs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite set of
>>>>>>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits that
>>>>>>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing
>>>>>>>> mapping of
>>>>>>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite
>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no such
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one
>>>>>>> example out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all
>>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical Pathological
>>>>>>> Lying Idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes
>>>>>> you look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use it
>>>>> as one of your truth makers that can make it true.  This is not an
>>>>> allowed operation, as if you do, then you get that exact same
>>>>> arguement I was using.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST& accept
>>>>> that mine is too, and thus you are what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid
>>>>> anyway independent of validity of the statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches back
>>>>> to some base truth makers, but also links back to itself. This
>>>>> leads to an infinite loop in the connection logic, where there is
>>>>> always a piece of the connection not connected to things alreayd
>>>>> known to be truth makers, so the statement has never been
>>>>> established as True, which requires that ALL neccessary premises
>>>>> for the statement be connected to know truth makers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the
>>>>> premise to the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a
>>>>> loop, thinking it has been established, when it is just a floating
>>>>> island of unsupported logic. If you start at the Truth Makers, you
>>>>> can't run into this problem, as you never had the presumptive
>>>>> statement available to incorrectly use.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A counter-example to my reasoning does not exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I have given it.
>>>
>>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>>>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>>>> knowing those meanings.
>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>
>>> Right, and a sentence that depends on its own truth value (like if H
>>> returns the right value ...) are proved to be able to lead to
>>> cotradictipons.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is correctly paraphrased as
>>>>
>>>> Analytical truth is the connection from an expression X of formal or
>>>> natural language L using truth preserving operations to expressions
>>>> of L
>>>> that have been stipulated to be true.
>>>
>>> Right, and you can not create such a chain to the statement you are
>>> making.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We know that cat are animals is true entirely on the basis of the
>>>> meaning of the words. The meaning of words are expressions of L that
>>>> have been stipulated to be true.
>>>
>>> So. Red Herring. Means nothing about the error of using a statement
>>> that references its own truth.
>>>
>>> Your statement that H can do xxx if H correctly decides yyy is a
>>> statement of the class that has been proven to lead to logical
>>> paradoxes.
>>>
>>> Such a statement can never be actually connected to previously
>>> accepted truth makers unless you can prove INDEPENDENTLY of that
>>> statement that H does give a correct decision.
>>>
>>> The fact that we know, by definition, that H(D,D) must be 1 to be
>>> correct if D(D) halts,
>>
>> *Changing the subject away from the following is a dishonest dodge*
>>
>> When the first seven instructions of D are correctly simulated by H it
>> can be seen that the simulated D would never stop running unless
>> aborted by H.
>>
>> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112ae5
>> Address_of_H:1383
>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>> [000019b3][00112ad1][00112ad5] 55         push ebp       // begin D
>> [000019b4][00112ad1][00112ad5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [000019b6][00112acd][00102aa1] 51         push ecx
>> [000019b7][00112acd][00102aa1] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000019ba][00112ac9][000019b3] 50         push eax       // push D
>> [000019bb][00112ac9][000019b3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000019be][00112ac5][000019b3] 51         push ecx       // push D
>> [000019bf][00112ac1][000019c4] e8bff9ffff call 00001383  // call H
>> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> *D only stops running when H aborts its simulation of D*
>>
>>>> If there is a countability issue with calculating the sum of arbitrary
>>>> finite sets of finite strings of ASCII digits that prevented a correct
>>>> sum from being calculated then there would be an element of this set
>>>> that cannot be summed.
>>>
>>> No, you don't understand countability, and are trying to apply it to
>>> a Red Herring. You seem to think that "Computation" == "Sum", which
>>> is just a proof of your ignorance.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not being able to count all of the sets of finite strings to be summed
>>>> in no way prevents any element of the sets of finite strings from being
>>>> correctly summed, thus has no impact on computability.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It isn't the set of finite strings that is uncountable, it is the set
>>> of mappings every finite string individualy to 0 or 1 that is
>>> uncountable.
>>>
>>
>> You are restricting the set of natural number sums to 1 and 0?
>
> No, I am restricting the output of a decider to accept or reject.
>
> The set of mappings (functions) of N -> N is also an uncountable set,
> but that just shows that not all functions on the Natural Numbers are
> computable. Showing that not a decision functions are computable is a
> stronger statement.
>
>>
>> Sum does not map every set of finite strings of ASCII digits to the
>> sum of these ASCII digit finite strings. It need not do that.
>
> Why do you keep talking about Sum" That is just Herring with Red sauce.
>

On 1/28/23 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2023 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/23 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2023 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/23 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2023 7:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make
>>>>>>>>>>>> an uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs
>>>>>>>>>>> deriving a single
>>>>>>>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of this
>>>>>>>>>>> as sums
>>>>>>>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime
>>>>>>>>>> factors of its input it the same machine that computes its
>>>>>>>>>> inputs factorial?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>>>>>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to
>>>>>>>>>> outputs?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite
>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits
>>>>>>>>>>> that cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing
>>>>>>>>> mapping of
>>>>>>>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite
>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no
>>>>>>>>> such issue
>>>>>>>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one
>>>>>>>> example out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all
>>>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical
>>>>>>>> Pathological Lying Idiot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem makes
>>>>>>> you look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic decorum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use
>>>>>> it as one of your truth makers that can make it true.  This is not
>>>>>> an allowed operation, as if you do, then you get that exact same
>>>>>> arguement I was using.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST& accept
>>>>>> that mine is too, and thus you are what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid
>>>>>> anyway independent of validity of the statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches back
>>>>>> to some base truth makers, but also links back to itself. This
>>>>>> leads to an infinite loop in the connection logic, where there is
>>>>>> always a piece of the connection not connected to things alreayd
>>>>>> known to be truth makers, so the statement has never been
>>>>>> established as True, which requires that ALL neccessary premises
>>>>>> for the statement be connected to know truth makers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the
>>>>>> premise to the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a
>>>>>> loop, thinking it has been established, when it is just a floating
>>>>>> island of unsupported logic. If you start at the Truth Makers, you
>>>>>> can't run into this problem, as you never had the presumptive
>>>>>> statement available to incorrectly use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A counter-example to my reasoning does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, I have given it.
>>>>
>>>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>>>>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>>>>> knowing those meanings.
>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>
>>>> Right, and a sentence that depends on its own truth value (like if H
>>>> returns the right value ...) are proved to be able to lead to
>>>> cotradictipons.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is correctly paraphrased as
>>>>>
>>>>> Analytical truth is the connection from an expression X of formal or
>>>>> natural language L using truth preserving operations to expressions
>>>>> of L
>>>>> that have been stipulated to be true.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and you can not create such a chain to the statement you are
>>>> making.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We know that cat are animals is true entirely on the basis of the
>>>>> meaning of the words. The meaning of words are expressions of L that
>>>>> have been stipulated to be true.
>>>>
>>>> So. Red Herring. Means nothing about the error of using a statement
>>>> that references its own truth.
>>>>
>>>> Your statement that H can do xxx if H correctly decides yyy is a
>>>> statement of the class that has been proven to lead to logical
>>>> paradoxes.
>>>>
>>>> Such a statement can never be actually connected to previously
>>>> accepted truth makers unless you can prove INDEPENDENTLY of that
>>>> statement that H does give a correct decision.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that we know, by definition, that H(D,D) must be 1 to be
>>>> correct if D(D) halts,
>>>
>>> *Changing the subject away from the following is a dishonest dodge*
>>>
>>> When the first seven instructions of D are correctly simulated by H
>>> it can be seen that the simulated D would never stop running unless
>>> aborted by H.
>>>
>>> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112ae5
>>> Address_of_H:1383
>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>> [000019b3][00112ad1][00112ad5] 55         push ebp       // begin D
>>> [000019b4][00112ad1][00112ad5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> [000019b6][00112acd][00102aa1] 51         push ecx
>>> [000019b7][00112acd][00102aa1] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [000019ba][00112ac9][000019b3] 50         push eax       // push D
>>> [000019bb][00112ac9][000019b3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [000019be][00112ac5][000019b3] 51         push ecx       // push D
>>> [000019bf][00112ac1][000019c4] e8bff9ffff call 00001383  // call H
>>> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>
>>> *D only stops running when H aborts its simulation of D*
>>>
>>>>> If there is a countability issue with calculating the sum of arbitrary
>>>>> finite sets of finite strings of ASCII digits that prevented a correct
>>>>> sum from being calculated then there would be an element of this set
>>>>> that cannot be summed.
>>>>
>>>> No, you don't understand countability, and are trying to apply it to
>>>> a Red Herring. You seem to think that "Computation" == "Sum", which
>>>> is just a proof of your ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not being able to count all of the sets of finite strings to be summed
>>>>> in no way prevents any element of the sets of finite strings from
>>>>> being
>>>>> correctly summed, thus has no impact on computability.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't the set of finite strings that is uncountable, it is the
>>>> set of mappings every finite string individualy to 0 or 1 that is
>>>> uncountable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are restricting the set of natural number sums to 1 and 0?
>>
>> No, I am restricting the output of a decider to accept or reject.
>>
>> The set of mappings (functions) of N -> N is also an uncountable set,
>> but that just shows that not all functions on the Natural Numbers are
>> computable. Showing that not a decision functions are computable is a
>> stronger statement.
>>
>>>
>>> Sum does not map every set of finite strings of ASCII digits to the
>>> sum of these ASCII digit finite strings. It need not do that.
>>
>> Why do you keep talking about Sum" That is just Herring with Red sauce.
>>
>
> We can transform sum into a simple decider.
> A TM decider takes a space delimited finite list of finite strings of
> ASCII digits: [0123456789]+ such that the first string is the sum of the
> remaining elements. Each element of the list is delimited by a
> single space. The last element is marked by four trailing spaces.
>
> IS_SUM computes the sum and compares this computed sum to the first
> element on this list. IS_SUM accepts or rejects its input on the basis
> that the computed == the first element of its finite list of finite
> strings.
>
> IS_SUM need not compute the mapping from every set of finite strings to
> its accept or reject state, it only needs to compute the mapping from
> any arbitrary element of the finite sets of finite strings of ASCII
> digits.
>
>

On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/23 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2023 11:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/23 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2023 10:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/23 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2023 7:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/23 12:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/26/23 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To be correct the TM need not calculate the sum of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of finite strings of ASCII digits, it merely has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute this sum correctly for any arbitrary element
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NBot talking about "Sums"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that there are no countability issues with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computability of halting on the basis that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> countability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues with the computation of sums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Falllicy of proof byt example.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less if sum has no countability issue with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings then H cannot have any countability issue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite pair of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you make a countable infinite number of machine make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an uncountable number of maps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I ask you again can you count to one?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> YTes, SO WHAT.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is only one machine that always has a finite number of
>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't need any maps we only need one set of inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>> deriving a single
>>>>>>>>>>>> output for any arbitrary set of inputs. When we think of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this as sums
>>>>>>>>>>>> then it is obvious that countability is not an issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the machine that computes the prime
>>>>>>>>>>> factors of its input it the same machine that computes its
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs factorial?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You DO understand that a Turing Machine can be treated as a
>>>>>>>>>>> computation that computes a specific mapping of inputs to
>>>>>>>>>>> outputs?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A TM must only compute the mapping from any arbitrary finite
>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>> inputs to its finite set of outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe not, as you are too stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any finite set of finite strings of ASCII digits
>>>>>>>>>>>> that cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>> summed by a TM? No, therefore computability is proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But summing isn't the only operation that a TM can do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That there is never any countability issue in the computing
>>>>>>>>>> mapping of
>>>>>>>>>> one arbitrary finite set of inputs to its corresponding finite
>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>> outputs with any computation at all proves that there is no
>>>>>>>>>> such issue
>>>>>>>>>> for summing or halt status detection.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you are claiming that proof by example is true, that if one
>>>>>>>>> example out of a set is true, the statement is true for all?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that ONE machine can be counted, doesn't mean that all
>>>>>>>>> can be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If X always works then X always works with Y or Z.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if this statement is true, you are a Hypocritical
>>>>>>>>> Pathological Lying Idiot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As always when you run out of reasoning you resort to ad hominem
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> gullible fools will take ad hominem as rebuttal. Ad hominem
>>>>>>>> makes you look quite foolish to anyone accustomed to academic
>>>>>>>> decorum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I am showing you are using invalid logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your statement is only true if you assume it to be true, and use
>>>>>>> it as one of your truth makers that can make it true.  This is
>>>>>>> not an allowed operation, as if you do, then you get that exact
>>>>>>> same arguement I was using.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, *IF* you want to say your argument is valid, you *MUST&
>>>>>>> accept that mine is too, and thus you are what I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that you don't get it, might say my results are valid
>>>>>>> anyway independent of validity of the statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In looking at your connection to truth makers view, X reaches
>>>>>>> back to some base truth makers, but also links back to itself.
>>>>>>> This leads to an infinite loop in the connection logic, where
>>>>>>> there is always a piece of the connection not connected to things
>>>>>>> alreayd known to be truth makers, so the statement has never been
>>>>>>> established as True, which requires that ALL neccessary premises
>>>>>>> for the statement be connected to know truth makers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the flaw of you thinking you work backwards from the
>>>>>>> premise to the truth makers, you can decieve yourself with such a
>>>>>>> loop, thinking it has been established, when it is just a
>>>>>>> floating island of unsupported logic. If you start at the Truth
>>>>>>> Makers, you can't run into this problem, as you never had the
>>>>>>> presumptive statement available to incorrectly use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A counter-example to my reasoning does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, I have given it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>>>>>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>>>>>> knowing those meanings.
>>>>>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and a sentence that depends on its own truth value (like if
>>>>> H returns the right value ...) are proved to be able to lead to
>>>>> cotradictipons.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is correctly paraphrased as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Analytical truth is the connection from an expression X of formal or
>>>>>> natural language L using truth preserving operations to
>>>>>> expressions of L
>>>>>> that have been stipulated to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and you can not create such a chain to the statement you are
>>>>> making.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know that cat are animals is true entirely on the basis of the
>>>>>> meaning of the words. The meaning of words are expressions of L that
>>>>>> have been stipulated to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>> So. Red Herring. Means nothing about the error of using a statement
>>>>> that references its own truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your statement that H can do xxx if H correctly decides yyy is a
>>>>> statement of the class that has been proven to lead to logical
>>>>> paradoxes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such a statement can never be actually connected to previously
>>>>> accepted truth makers unless you can prove INDEPENDENTLY of that
>>>>> statement that H does give a correct decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that we know, by definition, that H(D,D) must be 1 to be
>>>>> correct if D(D) halts,
>>>>
>>>> *Changing the subject away from the following is a dishonest dodge*
>>>>
>>>> When the first seven instructions of D are correctly simulated by H
>>>> it can be seen that the simulated D would never stop running unless
>>>> aborted by H.
>>>>
>>>> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112ae5
>>>> Address_of_H:1383
>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>> [000019b3][00112ad1][00112ad5] 55         push ebp       // begin D
>>>> [000019b4][00112ad1][00112ad5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>> [000019b6][00112acd][00102aa1] 51         push ecx
>>>> [000019b7][00112acd][00102aa1] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000019ba][00112ac9][000019b3] 50         push eax       // push D
>>>> [000019bb][00112ac9][000019b3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000019be][00112ac5][000019b3] 51         push ecx       // push D
>>>> [000019bf][00112ac1][000019c4] e8bff9ffff call 00001383  // call H
>>>> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>
>>>> *D only stops running when H aborts its simulation of D*
>>>>
>>>>>> If there is a countability issue with calculating the sum of
>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>> finite sets of finite strings of ASCII digits that prevented a
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> sum from being calculated then there would be an element of this set
>>>>>> that cannot be summed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you don't understand countability, and are trying to apply it
>>>>> to a Red Herring. You seem to think that "Computation" == "Sum",
>>>>> which is just a proof of your ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not being able to count all of the sets of finite strings to be
>>>>>> summed
>>>>>> in no way prevents any element of the sets of finite strings from
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> correctly summed, thus has no impact on computability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't the set of finite strings that is uncountable, it is the
>>>>> set of mappings every finite string individualy to 0 or 1 that is
>>>>> uncountable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are restricting the set of natural number sums to 1 and 0?
>>>
>>> No, I am restricting the output of a decider to accept or reject.
>>>
>>> The set of mappings (functions) of N -> N is also an uncountable set,
>>> but that just shows that not all functions on the Natural Numbers are
>>> computable. Showing that not a decision functions are computable is a
>>> stronger statement.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sum does not map every set of finite strings of ASCII digits to the
>>>> sum of these ASCII digit finite strings. It need not do that.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep talking about Sum" That is just Herring with Red sauce.
>>>
>>
>> We can transform sum into a simple decider.
>> A TM decider takes a space delimited finite list of finite strings of
>> ASCII digits: [0123456789]+ such that the first string is the sum of the
>> remaining elements. Each element of the list is delimited by a
>> single space. The last element is marked by four trailing spaces.
>>
>> IS_SUM computes the sum and compares this computed sum to the first
>> element on this list. IS_SUM accepts or rejects its input on the basis
>> that the computed == the first element of its finite list of finite
>> strings.
>>
>> IS_SUM need not compute the mapping from every set of finite strings to
>> its accept or reject state, it only needs to compute the mapping from
>> any arbitrary element of the finite sets of finite strings of ASCII
>> digits.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>
> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>

On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>
>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>
>
> One TM is *ALL* deciders.

Really?

It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?

Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?

>
>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and just fall
>> into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>
>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property doesn't
>> mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>
>
> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the wrong
> answer.

If the question is Is the number prime?

>
> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the wrong
> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the correct
> answer.
>
>

But only to the one question it was built for.

Are you saying your logic system is so limited it can only ask one question?

Or are just showing that you actually are that Hypocritical Pathological
Lying Ignorant Idiot that just talks about stuff that they don't know?

On 1/28/2023 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>>
>>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>>
>>
>> One TM is *ALL* deciders.
>
> Really?
>
> It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?
>
> Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?
>
>>
>>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and just
>>> fall into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>
>>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property doesn't
>>> mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>>
>>
>> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the wrong
>> answer.
>
> If the question is Is the number prime?
>
>>
>> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the wrong
>> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the correct
>> answer.
>>
>>
>
> But only to the one question it was built for.
>

Likewise for DOES_HALT, there are zero countability issues with
DOES_HALT. DOES_HALT merely needs to compute the mapping from any
arbitrary input pair of finite strings to its accept or reject state.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/27/2023 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/27/23 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2023 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/27/23 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/23 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I have repeatedly TOLD you the error, H presumes the wrong
>>>>>>> behavior for a call to H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When D calls H this is D calling H.
>>>>>> If H did not abort its simulation of D then D would never stop
>>>>>> running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But it DOES abort its simulation and returns 0 to D, because that
>>>>> is what it does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *THIS IS A TAUTOLOGY DISAGREEMENT IS DISHONEST*
>>>
>>> No, it is a LIE just like the LIARs paradox.
>>>
>>> Your "Claim" that it is a Tautology is just a LIE, becaue it is based
>>> on a false premise.
>>>
>>> The fact that you haven't answered my question just proves that you
>>> are admitting to being a Hypociritcal Pathological Lying Idiot.
>>>
>>>> Anytime that H correctly determines that its correct simulation of its
>>>> input D would never stop running unless aborted H is always correct to
>>>> abort this simulation and reject this input as non-halting.
>>>
>>> Except that the H you have provided never DOES a correct simulation
>>> so it is illogical to make a decision based on it doing one. PERIOD.
>>
>> H does a correct simulation of the first seven lines of D and upon
>> encountering the 8th line of D correctly determines that D would never
>> stop running unless aborted.
>
> Nope, that is an INCORRECT conclusion, because the actual behavior of
> that call to H by D(D) will be to abort ITS simulation (which is a
> different instance, which is also an incorrect action) and return 0.
>
> Thus H gets the wrong answer because it presumes that H will not get the
> wrong answer when it does.
>
> Until you provide the instruction in that direct execution of D(D) that
> differs from the execution of H(D,D) when called by main, you are just
> admitting that you are a Hypocritical Patholgical Lying Ignorant Idiot.
>

In other words you are trying to get away with the counter-factual claim
that D correctly simulated by H would eventually reach its own final
state and terminate normally.

>>
>> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112ae5
>> Address_of_H:1383
>> [000019b3][00112ad1][00112ad5] 55         push ebp       // begin D
>> [000019b4][00112ad1][00112ad5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [000019b6][00112acd][00102aa1] 51         push ecx
>> [000019b7][00112acd][00102aa1] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000019ba][00112ac9][000019b3] 50         push eax       // push D
>> [000019bb][00112ac9][000019b3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000019be][00112ac5][000019b3] 51         push ecx       // push D
>> [000019bf][00112ac1][000019c4] e8bff9ffff call 00001383  // call H
>> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> And H is wrong about ths.

If I was wrong you could point to a mistake.
Because you know that I am correct you cannot point to any mistake.

>>
>> It is easier to see that the correct simulation of PP by HH would never
>> stop running unless aborted.
>
> So, H is seeing a call to H as a call to HH?
>
>>
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112aa9
>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>> [00001993][00112a95][00112a99] 55             push ebp       // begin PP
>> [00001994][00112a95][00112a99] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>> [00001996][00112a91][00102a65] 51             push ecx
>> [00001997][00112a91][00102a65] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [0000199a][00112a8d][00001993] 50             push eax       // push PP
>> [0000199b][00112a8d][00001993] 8b4d08         mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [0000199e][00112a89][00001993] 51             push ecx       // push PP
>> [0000199f][00112a85][000019a4] e8fff7ffff     call 000011a3  // call HH
>> New slave_stack at:14d4c9
>
> And this is the point the trace is incorrect as the CORRECT tracing of a
> call to HH should be showing the code of HH executing,
>
>> [00001993][0015d4bd][0015d4c1] 55             push ebp       // begin PP
>> [00001994][0015d4bd][0015d4c1] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>> [00001996][0015d4b9][0014d48d] 51             push ecx
>> [00001997][0015d4b9][0014d48d] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [0000199a][0015d4b5][00001993] 50             push eax      // push PP
>> [0000199b][0015d4b5][00001993] 8b4d08         mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [0000199e][0015d4b1][00001993] 51             push ecx      // push PP
>> [0000199f][0015d4ad][000019a4] e8fff7ffff     call 000011a3 // call HH
>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> If H or HH were to wait for their nested simulations to abort their
>> simulation then the input would never be aborted because each H or HH
>> would wait for the next one ad infinitum.
>>
>>
>
> Thank you again for confirming that you are just a Hypocirtical
> Pathological Lying Ignorant Idiot.

In other words you have no rebuttal to my claim because you know that I
just proved that I am correct.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/23 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/27/2023 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/27/23 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> H does a correct simulation of the first seven lines of D and upon
>>> encountering the 8th line of D correctly determines that D would never
>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>
>> Nope, that is an INCORRECT conclusion, because the actual behavior of
>> that call to H by D(D) will be to abort ITS simulation (which is a
>> different instance, which is also an incorrect action) and return 0.
>>
>> Thus H gets the wrong answer because it presumes that H will not get
>> the wrong answer when it does.
>>
>> Until you provide the instruction in that direct execution of D(D)
>> that differs from the execution of H(D,D) when called by main, you are
>> just admitting that you are a Hypocritical Patholgical Lying Ignorant
>> Idiot.
>>
>
> In other words you are trying to get away with the counter-factual claim
> that D correctly simulated by H would eventually reach its own final
> state and terminate normally.

D correctly siumulated will reach its own final state. This is shown by
UTM(D,D).

H never does this, so you statement is like the anwswer to have you
stopped beating your wife. (or lying about everything)

You don't seem to understand that a program does what the progra does so
apparently you have failed to have any useful experiance as a programmer.

>
>>>
>>> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112ae5
>>> Address_of_H:1383
>>> [000019b3][00112ad1][00112ad5] 55         push ebp       // begin D
>>> [000019b4][00112ad1][00112ad5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> [000019b6][00112acd][00102aa1] 51         push ecx
>>> [000019b7][00112acd][00102aa1] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [000019ba][00112ac9][000019b3] 50         push eax       // push D
>>> [000019bb][00112ac9][000019b3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [000019be][00112ac5][000019b3] 51         push ecx       // push D
>>> [000019bf][00112ac1][000019c4] e8bff9ffff call 00001383  // call H
>>> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> And H is wrong about ths.
>
> If I was wrong you could point to a mistake.
> Because you know that I am correct you cannot point to any mistake.

I' e told you the mistgake, but you apparently dont't understand that a
"Cal H" instruction should be followed by the code of the function H,
and tha tH is KNOWN to return from that call and return 0.

You are kjust admitting that you are a Hypocritical Pathological Lying Idot.

>
>>>
>>> It is easier to see that the correct simulation of PP by HH would never
>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>
>> So, H is seeing a call to H as a call to HH?
>>
>>>
>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112aa9
>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>> [00001993][00112a95][00112a99] 55             push ebp       // begin PP
>>> [00001994][00112a95][00112a99] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001996][00112a91][00102a65] 51             push ecx
>>> [00001997][00112a91][00102a65] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000199a][00112a8d][00001993] 50             push eax       // push PP
>>> [0000199b][00112a8d][00001993] 8b4d08         mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000199e][00112a89][00001993] 51             push ecx       // push PP
>>> [0000199f][00112a85][000019a4] e8fff7ffff     call 000011a3  // call HH
>>> New slave_stack at:14d4c9
>>
>> And this is the point the trace is incorrect as the CORRECT tracing of
>> a call to HH should be showing the code of HH executing,
>>
>>> [00001993][0015d4bd][0015d4c1] 55             push ebp       // begin PP
>>> [00001994][0015d4bd][0015d4c1] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001996][0015d4b9][0014d48d] 51             push ecx
>>> [00001997][0015d4b9][0014d48d] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000199a][0015d4b5][00001993] 50             push eax      // push PP
>>> [0000199b][0015d4b5][00001993] 8b4d08         mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000199e][0015d4b1][00001993] 51             push ecx      // push PP
>>> [0000199f][0015d4ad][000019a4] e8fff7ffff     call 000011a3 // call HH
>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>
>>> If H or HH were to wait for their nested simulations to abort their
>>> simulation then the input would never be aborted because each H or HH
>>> would wait for the next one ad infinitum.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thank you again for confirming that you are just a Hypocirtical
>> Pathological Lying Ignorant Idiot.
>
> In other words you have no rebuttal to my claim because you know that I
> just proved that I am correct.
>

Since you have not answered MY question, you are the one showing you
have no rebutal for my question.

H(D,D) will ALWAYS return 0 in ALL Cases, so a simulaiton that shows
anything else is just WRONG.

On 1/28/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2023 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>>>
>>>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One TM is *ALL* deciders.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?
>>
>> Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?
>>
>>>
>>>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and just
>>>> fall into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>
>>>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property doesn't
>>>> mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the wrong
>>> answer.
>>
>> If the question is Is the number prime?
>>
>>>
>>> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the wrong
>>> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the correct
>>> answer.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But only to the one question it was built for.
>>
>
> Likewise for DOES_HALT, there are zero countability issues with
> DOES_HALT. DOES_HALT merely needs to compute the mapping from any
> arbitrary input pair of finite strings to its accept or reject state.
>

Can you PROVE that this is doable?

Remember, there are more mappings from Turing Machies/Inputs to
decisions than possible deciders, so most mappings are not computabe.

You have NOT countered this statement, just lied about it.

You need to actually shwo that it is.

You have failed to answer any of my questions, which just shwos that you
don't have an answer.

You are just proving you are an ignorant idiotic pathological liar.

On 1/28/2023 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/23 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/27/2023 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/27/23 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> H does a correct simulation of the first seven lines of D and upon
>>>> encountering the 8th line of D correctly determines that D would never
>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>
>>> Nope, that is an INCORRECT conclusion, because the actual behavior of
>>> that call to H by D(D) will be to abort ITS simulation (which is a
>>> different instance, which is also an incorrect action) and return 0.
>>>
>>> Thus H gets the wrong answer because it presumes that H will not get
>>> the wrong answer when it does.
>>>
>>> Until you provide the instruction in that direct execution of D(D)
>>> that differs from the execution of H(D,D) when called by main, you
>>> are just admitting that you are a Hypocritical Patholgical Lying
>>> Ignorant Idiot.
>>>
>>
>> In other words you are trying to get away with the counter-factual claim
>> that D correctly simulated by H would eventually reach its own final
>> state and terminate normally.
>
> D correctly siumulated will reach its own final state. This is shown by
> UTM(D,D).
You dishonestly changed the words. Why lie?

D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D
and terminate normally.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/28/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2023 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One TM is *ALL* deciders.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?
>>>
>>> Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and just
>>>>> fall into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property doesn't
>>>>> mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the wrong
>>>> answer.
>>>
>>> If the question is Is the number prime?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the wrong
>>>> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the correct
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But only to the one question it was built for.
>>>
>>
>> Likewise for DOES_HALT, there are zero countability issues with
>> DOES_HALT. DOES_HALT merely needs to compute the mapping from any
>> arbitrary input pair of finite strings to its accept or reject state.
>>
>
> Can you PROVE that this is doable?
>

We can change IS_SUM to allow any arbitrary finite set of finite string
inputs. If any of these finite strings contains a character that is not
an ASCII digit then IS_SUM rejects, otherwise IS_SUM is as it was
previously specified.

Because we can see from IS_SUM that there cannot be any countability
issues for any decider that takes a finite set of arbitrary finite
string inputs therefore there cannot be any countability issue for any
decider that takes a pair of arbitrary finite sting inputs such as
DOES_HALT.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/29/23 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2023 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/23 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/27/2023 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/23 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> H does a correct simulation of the first seven lines of D and upon
>>>>> encountering the 8th line of D correctly determines that D would never
>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, that is an INCORRECT conclusion, because the actual behavior
>>>> of that call to H by D(D) will be to abort ITS simulation (which is
>>>> a different instance, which is also an incorrect action) and return 0.
>>>>
>>>> Thus H gets the wrong answer because it presumes that H will not get
>>>> the wrong answer when it does.
>>>>
>>>> Until you provide the instruction in that direct execution of D(D)
>>>> that differs from the execution of H(D,D) when called by main, you
>>>> are just admitting that you are a Hypocritical Patholgical Lying
>>>> Ignorant Idiot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the counter-factual claim
>>> that D correctly simulated by H would eventually reach its own final
>>> state and terminate normally.
>>
>> D correctly siumulated will reach its own final state. This is shown
>> by UTM(D,D).
> You dishonestly changed the words. Why lie?

No, YOU are o=one making the change, The definition of a Halt Decider is
to give the answer about the behavior of the actual machine running on
the actual input that the decider has been given. PERIOD.

You don't get to change that. PERIOD.

It is a CHANGE to talk about "corrct simulation", one perhaps justified
only if you use the definition of "correct simulation" as the Simulation
generated by an ACTUAL Universal Turing Machine.

A Universal Turing Machine NEVER aborts its simulation, and the UTM
simulation of a non-halting machine, never returns.

To say the simulation "By H" is also equivalent and correct, means H can
not abort its simuliation either,

Since H does, the simulation "by H" doesn't meet the requirement for an
correct simulation that can give a correct answer.

>
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach the final state of D
> and terminate normally.
>

H doesn't not correctly simulate D and give a correct answer (Not per
the required definitions). PERIOD.

Your whole argument is based on the LIE that even though, as you have
agreed, at least at times, that the actual direct execution of D(D) is
to Halt, that "some how" the "Correct Answer" to the question of does it
Halt is that it does not.

You Hide it by trying to talk about a "Correct SImulation by H" first by
appealing to the definition of a UTM, and that definiton, and then
CHANGINING it (which is a from of LIE) to something different.

H never does a "Correct Simulation" by any defintion that allows it to
make claims about the behavior of the original machine, and thus you
whole arguement is shows to be just a Hypocritcal Ignorant Pathological
Lying attempt to prove something that is not true.

You have wasted you LIFE chasing a LIE. You have destroyed your
reputation and any possible reputation of the things you have supported,
if they has any positive value in the first place.

YOU ARE A LOSER.

On 1/29/23 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/28/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/28/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2023 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One TM is *ALL* deciders.
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and just
>>>>>> fall into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property
>>>>>> doesn't mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the
>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> If the question is Is the number prime?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the wrong
>>>>> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the correct
>>>>> answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But only to the one question it was built for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Likewise for DOES_HALT, there are zero countability issues with
>>> DOES_HALT. DOES_HALT merely needs to compute the mapping from any
>>> arbitrary input pair of finite strings to its accept or reject state.
>>>
>>
>> Can you PROVE that this is doable?
>>
>
> We can change IS_SUM to allow any arbitrary finite set of finite string
> inputs. If any of these finite strings contains a character that is not
> an ASCII digit then IS_SUM rejects, otherwise IS_SUM is as it was
> previously specified.

Ok, how do you use IS_SUM to answer the IS_PRIME question?

IS_SUM takes the countably infinite number of inputs and produces 1
(ONE), count them, map of inputs to outputs.

You still have a uncountable infinte number of mappings to go.

You clearly don't understand what a decider actually is.

>
> Because we can see from IS_SUM that there cannot be any countability
> issues for any decider that takes a finite set of arbitrary finite
> string inputs therefore there cannot be any countability issue for any
> decider that takes a pair of arbitrary finite sting inputs such as
> DOES_HALT.
>

What, that you can count to 1 Turing Machine, (That you have shown you
don't even know how to make yoursef) says that you can talk about what
all possible Turing Machines do?

Saying there isn't a countability problem doesn't make it so. Since each
"change" you make creates a new Turing Machine, and there are only a
countable infinte number of changes you can make, you can only modify
them to answer a countably infinite number of mappings.

Since there are a uncountable infinte number of mappings possible, that
is the counting arguement, you haven't shown how you over come the
Pigeon Hole principle.

Maybe this says that the Pigeon is smarter than you.

On 1/29/2023 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/29/23 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2023 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/23 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> H does a correct simulation of the first seven lines of D and upon
>>>>>> encountering the 8th line of D correctly determines that D would
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, that is an INCORRECT conclusion, because the actual behavior
>>>>> of that call to H by D(D) will be to abort ITS simulation (which is
>>>>> a different instance, which is also an incorrect action) and return 0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus H gets the wrong answer because it presumes that H will not
>>>>> get the wrong answer when it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you provide the instruction in that direct execution of D(D)
>>>>> that differs from the execution of H(D,D) when called by main, you
>>>>> are just admitting that you are a Hypocritical Patholgical Lying
>>>>> Ignorant Idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the counter-factual
>>>> claim
>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would eventually reach its own final
>>>> state and terminate normally.
>>>
>>> D correctly siumulated will reach its own final state. This is shown
>>> by UTM(D,D).
>> You dishonestly changed the words. Why lie?
>
> No, YOU are o=one making the change,

When D is CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H
D cannot possibly reach its own final state and halt.

On the basis of the behavior that H actually sees H is necessarily
correct. If H were to report on anything else besides that behavior that
it actually sees H would be wrong.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/29/2023 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/29/23 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/28/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/28/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2023 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One TM is *ALL* deciders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and just
>>>>>>> fall into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property
>>>>>>> doesn't mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the
>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the question is Is the number prime?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the
>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But only to the one question it was built for.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Likewise for DOES_HALT, there are zero countability issues with
>>>> DOES_HALT. DOES_HALT merely needs to compute the mapping from any
>>>> arbitrary input pair of finite strings to its accept or reject state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you PROVE that this is doable?
>>>
>>
>> We can change IS_SUM to allow any arbitrary finite set of finite string
>> inputs. If any of these finite strings contains a character that is not
>> an ASCII digit then IS_SUM rejects, otherwise IS_SUM is as it was
>> previously specified.
>
> Ok, how do you use IS_SUM to answer the IS_PRIME question?
>

IS_PRIME would have a single finite string of ASCII digits as its only
input and you already know this is computable.

> IS_SUM takes the countably infinite number of inputs

IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs

> and produces 1
> (ONE), count them, map of inputs to outputs.
>
> You still have a uncountable infinte number of mappings to go.
>

Maybe I need to always tell you things fifteen times every time that I
say them. You clearly have an attention deficit issue.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/29/23 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2023 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/23 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2023 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/23 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> H does a correct simulation of the first seven lines of D and upon
>>>>>>> encountering the 8th line of D correctly determines that D would
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, that is an INCORRECT conclusion, because the actual behavior
>>>>>> of that call to H by D(D) will be to abort ITS simulation (which
>>>>>> is a different instance, which is also an incorrect action) and
>>>>>> return 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus H gets the wrong answer because it presumes that H will not
>>>>>> get the wrong answer when it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you provide the instruction in that direct execution of D(D)
>>>>>> that differs from the execution of H(D,D) when called by main, you
>>>>>> are just admitting that you are a Hypocritical Patholgical Lying
>>>>>> Ignorant Idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the counter-factual
>>>>> claim
>>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would eventually reach its own final
>>>>> state and terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> D correctly siumulated will reach its own final state. This is shown
>>>> by UTM(D,D).
>>> You dishonestly changed the words. Why lie?
>>
>> No, YOU are o=one making the change,
>
> When D is CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H

Which doesn't happen if H answers, so you are just showing yourself to
be a Pathological Liar.

You are using invalid logic of trying to prove a statement by assuming a
premiss.

Remember the DEFINITION of "Correct Simulation" that must be used to
make your claim.

You ar just a Patholgocial Liar

> D cannot possibly reach its own final state and halt.
>
> On the basis of the behavior that H actually sees H is necessarily
> correct. If H were to report on anything else besides that behavior that
> it actually sees H would be wrong.
>

Nope. H can KNOW that a call to H(D,D) will return 0. You have admitted
that by not showing what insrruction of the actual execution of the two
paths that differ in H.

Thus you are admitting that you are a Hypocritical Pathological Lying
Ignorant Idiot.

This is proven until you can show what instruction in H, actually
executed by the two machines differs: main -> D(D) -> H(D,D) and
main -> H(D,D)

On 1/29/23 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/29/2023 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/29/23 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/28/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/2023 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One TM is *ALL* deciders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and
>>>>>>>> just fall into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the
>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the question is Is the number prime?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the
>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only to the one question it was built for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise for DOES_HALT, there are zero countability issues with
>>>>> DOES_HALT. DOES_HALT merely needs to compute the mapping from any
>>>>> arbitrary input pair of finite strings to its accept or reject state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you PROVE that this is doable?
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can change IS_SUM to allow any arbitrary finite set of finite string
>>> inputs. If any of these finite strings contains a character that is not
>>> an ASCII digit then IS_SUM rejects, otherwise IS_SUM is as it was
>>> previously specified.
>>
>> Ok, how do you use IS_SUM to answer the IS_PRIME question?
>>
>
> IS_PRIME would have a single finite string of ASCII digits as its only
> input and you already know this is computable.
>
>> IS_SUM takes the countably infinite number of inputs
>
> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs

And computes ONE mapping, out of the uncountable infinte many mappings
of strings -> the set of answers for each input.

You still have an uncountable infinite number of maps to compute.

>
>> and produces 1 (ONE), count them, map of inputs to outputs.
>>
>> You still have a uncountable infinte number of mappings to go.
>>
>
> Maybe I need to always tell you things fifteen times every time that I
> say them. You clearly have an attention deficit issue.
>

Repeating the same error that many times just shows that you are totally
mentally deficient.

It seems that you have a near zero reading comprehention.

On 1/29/2023 7:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/29/23 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2023 7:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/29/23 7:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2023 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/23 6:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/27/2023 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/27/23 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> H does a correct simulation of the first seven lines of D and upon
>>>>>>>> encountering the 8th line of D correctly determines that D would
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, that is an INCORRECT conclusion, because the actual
>>>>>>> behavior of that call to H by D(D) will be to abort ITS
>>>>>>> simulation (which is a different instance, which is also an
>>>>>>> incorrect action) and return 0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus H gets the wrong answer because it presumes that H will not
>>>>>>> get the wrong answer when it does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you provide the instruction in that direct execution of
>>>>>>> D(D) that differs from the execution of H(D,D) when called by
>>>>>>> main, you are just admitting that you are a Hypocritical
>>>>>>> Patholgical Lying Ignorant Idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the counter-factual
>>>>>> claim
>>>>>> that D correctly simulated by H would eventually reach its own final
>>>>>> state and terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> D correctly siumulated will reach its own final state. This is
>>>>> shown by UTM(D,D).
>>>> You dishonestly changed the words. Why lie?
>>>
>>> No, YOU are o=one making the change,
>>
>> When D is CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H
>
> Which doesn't happen if H answers,

Correctly and completely is not the same as correctly.

It one instruction of D is correctly simulated then this one instruction
<is> correctly simulated, likewise with more than one.

*THIS IS PROVEN TRUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEANING OF ITS WORDS*
As long as H correctly simulates D until H has a correct basis to
determine that D would never reach the final state of D then H has
correctly determined that D is non-halting.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/29/2023 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/29/23 8:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2023 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 1/29/23 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/28/2023 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/28/2023 3:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/28/23 3:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/28/2023 2:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, you can build SOME Deciders from a Sumation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not All Deciders can be built from a Sumation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One TM is *ALL* deciders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can be both a is_prime and is_perfect decider?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe your problem is you don't understand at all what a decider is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the basics of category theory, and
>>>>>>>>> just fall into the fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just because one subset of a set happens to have a property
>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that property applies to the whole class.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try and provide a single counter-example where IS_SUM gets the
>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the question is Is the number prime?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there are no counter-examples that prove that IS_SUM gets the
>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>> answer then this logically entails that IS_SUM always gets the
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But only to the one question it was built for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likewise for DOES_HALT, there are zero countability issues with
>>>>>> DOES_HALT. DOES_HALT merely needs to compute the mapping from any
>>>>>> arbitrary input pair of finite strings to its accept or reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you PROVE that this is doable?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can change IS_SUM to allow any arbitrary finite set of finite string
>>>> inputs. If any of these finite strings contains a character that is not
>>>> an ASCII digit then IS_SUM rejects, otherwise IS_SUM is as it was
>>>> previously specified.
>>>
>>> Ok, how do you use IS_SUM to answer the IS_PRIME question?
>>>
>>
>> IS_PRIME would have a single finite string of ASCII digits as its only
>> input and you already know this is computable.
>>
>>> IS_SUM takes the countably infinite number of inputs
>>
>> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
>> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
>> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
>> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
>> IS_SUM takes a finite set of finite string inputs
>
> And computes ONE mapping, out of the uncountable infinte many mappings
> of strings -> the set of answers for each input.
IS_SUM need not ever count any uncountable set. All that IS_SUM must do
is compute each mapping that it is presented with, one finite set of
finite strings at a time.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer