Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
nowhere and never ends.

/Flibble

On 11/13/2021 10:57 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
> Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
> of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
> nowhere and never ends.
>
> /Flibble
>

Hence my new signature line:

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/2021 10:57 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
> Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
> of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
> nowhere and never ends.
>
> /Flibble
>

Hence my new signature line:

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
> Arthur Schopenhauer

Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after they
have hit it, as they understand things so well.

You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown by the
fact that you can't even use the right terminology.

No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but you don't
seem to understand how to get there. If you really do have some great
idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you need to start at the
basics and work up, not start at the end of a road that has its
structure locked and disagrees with what you want.

On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>
>
> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after they
> have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>

Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really give a
rat's ass for the actual truth.

> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown by the
> fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>
> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but you don't
> seem to understand how to get there. If you really do have some great
> idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you need to start at the
> basics and work up, not start at the end of a road that has its
> structure locked and disagrees with what you want.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/21 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>
>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
>>
>> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after they
>> have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>>
>
> Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really give a
> rat's ass for the actual truth.
>
>> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown by the
>> fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>>
>> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but you
>> don't seem to understand how to get there. If you really do have some
>> great idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you need to start at
>> the basics and work up, not start at the end of a road that has its
>> structure locked and disagrees with what you want.
>
>

No, True Genius understands what they are talking about well enough to
answer the rebuttals. You just ignore them, showing that you don't
really understand what you are talking about.

MAYBE, you have something in your ideas about what Truth means, but, it
clearly isn't of the 'Genius' category because you don't understand
where to apply it. You CAN'T change the rules which a field of logic is
built on at the tail end, but you need to go to the start, and work from
there.

It is clear that you don't understand that fundamentals of logic well
enough to work there, which proves that it isn't Genius. Maybe it is an
inspired idea, but it isn't Genius.x

On 11/13/2021 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/13/21 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after
>>> they have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>>>
>>
>> Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really give a
>> rat's ass for the actual truth.
>>
>>> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown by
>>> the fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>>>
>>> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but you
>>> don't seem to understand how to get there. If you really do have some
>>> great idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you need to start at
>>> the basics and work up, not start at the end of a road that has its
>>> structure locked and disagrees with what you want.
>>
>>
>
> No, True Genius understands what they are talking about well enough to
> answer the rebuttals. You just ignore them, showing that you don't
> really understand what you are talking about.
>

True Genius also understands how to distinguish the difference between
an actual rebuttal and a very subtle strawman error.

True Genius understands that any rebuttal to the strawman based fake
rebuttal is a total waste of time.

The only rational approach to the very persistent tactic of the strawman
error is to make the assertion so precise that fake rebuttals can be
objectively discerned.

_P()
[00001a5e](01) 55 push ebp
[00001a5f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001a61](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001a64](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001a65](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001a68](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[00001a69](05) e810000000 call 00001a7e // call H
[00001a6e](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001a71](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001a72](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001a72]

If when every H in the universe invoked from machine address 00001a7e
takes a 100% specific byte sequence as the definition of its P input and
no element of this infinite set ever results in P reaching its final
state then we know that this P never halts and every H that returns 0 is
a correct halt decider for this specific P.

There is no weasel wording around that one.

> MAYBE, you have something in your ideas about what Truth means, but, it
> clearly isn't of the 'Genius' category because you don't understand
> where to apply it. You CAN'T change the rules which a field of logic is
> built on at the tail end, but you need to go to the start, and work from
> there.
>
> It is clear that you don't understand that fundamentals of logic well
> enough to work there, which proves that it isn't Genius. Maybe it is an
> inspired idea, but it isn't Genius.x

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/21 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/13/21 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after
>>>> they have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really give
>>> a rat's ass for the actual truth.
>>>
>>>> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown by
>>>> the fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>>>>
>>>> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but you
>>>> don't seem to understand how to get there. If you really do have
>>>> some great idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you need to
>>>> start at the basics and work up, not start at the end of a road that
>>>> has its structure locked and disagrees with what you want.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, True Genius understands what they are talking about well enough to
>> answer the rebuttals. You just ignore them, showing that you don't
>> really understand what you are talking about.
>>
>
> True Genius also understands how to distinguish the difference between
> an actual rebuttal and a very subtle strawman error.
>
> True Genius understands that any rebuttal to the strawman based fake
> rebuttal is a total waste of time.

And the deluded person thinks everything is a strawman and the world is
out the get them.

>
> The only rational approach to the very persistent tactic of the strawman
> error is to make the assertion so precise that fake rebuttals can be
> objectively discerned.
>
> _P()
> [00001a5e](01)  55              push ebp
> [00001a5f](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00001a61](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001a64](01)  50              push eax        // push P
> [00001a65](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001a68](01)  51              push ecx        // push P
> [00001a69](05)  e810000000      call 00001a7e   // call H
> [00001a6e](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00001a71](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00001a72](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001a72]
>
> If when every H in the universe invoked from machine address 00001a7e
> takes a 100% specific byte sequence as the definition of its P input and
> no element of this infinite set ever results in P reaching its final
> state then we know that this P never halts and every H that returns 0 is
> a correct halt decider for this specific P.

Except you have the basic problem wrong. First, that byte sequence does
NOT fully define P as defined by Compuation Theory, so you have shown
that you don't understand that basics of the problem.

I have shown a P where P reaches the address 1A72 when we directly
execute P, so you statement is incorrect.

If H is just ret, that happens. So you claim is disproved.

Your claim makes the FALSE assumption that we are interested in what
happens inside H, and yes, for at least most H's that are simulators,
will the SIMULATION in H reach that address, but that is deferent than
the claim that P never reaches that point.

When H never aborts its simulation but remains a pure simulation, yes,
this behavior shows that for THIS case, the computation P (which is
dependent on H) is non-halting, but H never returns 0 in these cases so
is wrong.

When H does abort its simulation and returns 0, then H has now failed to
be a direct execution or pure simulation, so its failure to reach that
address in its operation isn't indicative, but when we directly execute
the P above, we see it call H(P,P) and after some time that H return the
0 and P then Halts, PROVING that THIS P(P) is Halting, and H is wrong to
say it is non-halting.

For this case there in fact ARE simulation based deciders that can get
the answer right. If H detects the recursion and rather than just
blindly executing or declaring non-halting does a trial simulation first
assuming that H would have returned 0 and then, if needed, if H would
have returned 1, and see what happens, then THAT version of H will
actually see that this P is Halting.

Thus, even for your FALSE claim, there is a simulator that can simulate
this input to its halting state.

Note, this method still fails for the H^ machine, as it sees that if it
says Halting, then H^ will be non-halting, and if it says non-halting
then H^ will be Halting, so it can't give the right answer, but in a
relaxed version of the problem, where H is allowed to be a partial halt
decider, it can decide more cases than your crude H, and never get any
wrong (it just admit defeat in some cases, and fails to decide in others).

>
> There is no weasel wording around that one.

I think the weasel has bitten you. I do disprove your claim.

>
>> MAYBE, you have something in your ideas about what Truth means, but,
>> it clearly isn't of the 'Genius' category because you don't understand
>> where to apply it. You CAN'T change the rules which a field of logic
>> is built on at the tail end, but you need to go to the start, and work
>> from there.
>>
>> It is clear that you don't understand that fundamentals of logic well
>> enough to work there, which proves that it isn't Genius. Maybe it is
>> an inspired idea, but it isn't Genius.x
>
>

On 11/13/2021 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/13/21 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/13/21 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after
>>>>> they have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really give
>>>> a rat's ass for the actual truth.
>>>>
>>>>> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown by
>>>>> the fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but you
>>>>> don't seem to understand how to get there. If you really do have
>>>>> some great idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you need to
>>>>> start at the basics and work up, not start at the end of a road
>>>>> that has its structure locked and disagrees with what you want.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, True Genius understands what they are talking about well enough
>>> to answer the rebuttals. You just ignore them, showing that you don't
>>> really understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>
>> True Genius also understands how to distinguish the difference between
>> an actual rebuttal and a very subtle strawman error.
>>
>> True Genius understands that any rebuttal to the strawman based fake
>> rebuttal is a total waste of time.
>
> And the deluded person thinks everything is a strawman and the world is
> out the get them.
>
>>
>> The only rational approach to the very persistent tactic of the
>> strawman error is to make the assertion so precise that fake rebuttals
>> can be objectively discerned.
>>
>> _P()
>> [00001a5e](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00001a5f](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00001a61](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001a64](01)  50              push eax        // push P
>> [00001a65](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001a68](01)  51              push ecx        // push P
>> [00001a69](05)  e810000000      call 00001a7e   // call H
>> [00001a6e](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>> [00001a71](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [00001a72](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001a72]
>>
>> If when every H in the universe invoked from machine address 00001a7e
>> takes a 100% specific byte sequence as the definition of its P input
>> and no element of this infinite set ever results in P reaching its
>> final state then we know that this P never halts and every H that
>> returns 0 is a correct halt decider for this specific P.
>
> Except you have the basic problem wrong. First, that byte sequence does
> NOT fully define P as defined by Compuation Theory, so you have shown
> that you don't understand that basics of the problem.
>
Everything that can possibly be added to what I did say that meets my
spec and does form a computer science computation never results in P
reaching its final state.

There is no weasel wording around this.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/21 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/13/21 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/21 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after
>>>>>> they have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really
>>>>> give a rat's ass for the actual truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown by
>>>>>> the fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but you
>>>>>> don't seem to understand how to get there. If you really do have
>>>>>> some great idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you need to
>>>>>> start at the basics and work up, not start at the end of a road
>>>>>> that has its structure locked and disagrees with what you want.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, True Genius understands what they are talking about well enough
>>>> to answer the rebuttals. You just ignore them, showing that you
>>>> don't really understand what you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True Genius also understands how to distinguish the difference
>>> between an actual rebuttal and a very subtle strawman error.
>>>
>>> True Genius understands that any rebuttal to the strawman based fake
>>> rebuttal is a total waste of time.
>>
>> And the deluded person thinks everything is a strawman and the world
>> is out the get them.
>>
>>>
>>> The only rational approach to the very persistent tactic of the
>>> strawman error is to make the assertion so precise that fake
>>> rebuttals can be objectively discerned.
>>>
>>> _P()
>>> [00001a5e](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00001a5f](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001a61](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001a64](01)  50              push eax        // push P
>>> [00001a65](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001a68](01)  51              push ecx        // push P
>>> [00001a69](05)  e810000000      call 00001a7e   // call H
>>> [00001a6e](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>>> [00001a71](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>> [00001a72](01)  c3              ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001a72]
>>>
>>> If when every H in the universe invoked from machine address 00001a7e
>>> takes a 100% specific byte sequence as the definition of its P input
>>> and no element of this infinite set ever results in P reaching its
>>> final state then we know that this P never halts and every H that
>>> returns 0 is a correct halt decider for this specific P.
>>
>> Except you have the basic problem wrong. First, that byte sequence
>> does NOT fully define P as defined by Compuation Theory, so you have
>> shown that you don't understand that basics of the problem.
>>
> Everything that can possibly be added to what I did say that meets my
> spec and does form a computer science computation never results in P
> reaching its final state.
>
> There is no weasel wording around this.
>

Nope, Your P fails to meet the definition of a Computation. PERIOD.

You just show your ignorance.

As I said. H = ret gets P to Halt.

FAIL.

You are just sealing your legacy as a crank by your utter stupidity in
your statements.

On 11/13/2021 2:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/13/21 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/13/21 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/21 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target after
>>>>>>> they have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really
>>>>>> give a rat's ass for the actual truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown
>>>>>>> by the fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but
>>>>>>> you don't seem to understand how to get there. If you really do
>>>>>>> have some great idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you
>>>>>>> need to start at the basics and work up, not start at the end of
>>>>>>> a road that has its structure locked and disagrees with what you
>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, True Genius understands what they are talking about well enough
>>>>> to answer the rebuttals. You just ignore them, showing that you
>>>>> don't really understand what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True Genius also understands how to distinguish the difference
>>>> between an actual rebuttal and a very subtle strawman error.
>>>>
>>>> True Genius understands that any rebuttal to the strawman based fake
>>>> rebuttal is a total waste of time.
>>>
>>> And the deluded person thinks everything is a strawman and the world
>>> is out the get them.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only rational approach to the very persistent tactic of the
>>>> strawman error is to make the assertion so precise that fake
>>>> rebuttals can be objectively discerned.
>>>>
>>>> _P()
>>>> [00001a5e](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00001a5f](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001a61](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001a64](01)  50              push eax        // push P
>>>> [00001a65](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001a68](01)  51              push ecx        // push P
>>>> [00001a69](05)  e810000000      call 00001a7e   // call H
>>>> [00001a6e](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>>>> [00001a71](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [00001a72](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001a72]
>>>>
>>>> If when every H in the universe invoked from machine address
>>>> 00001a7e takes a 100% specific byte sequence as the definition of
>>>> its P input and no element of this infinite set ever results in P
>>>> reaching its final state then we know that this P never halts and
>>>> every H that returns 0 is a correct halt decider for this specific P.
>>>
>>> Except you have the basic problem wrong. First, that byte sequence
>>> does NOT fully define P as defined by Compuation Theory, so you have
>>> shown that you don't understand that basics of the problem.
>>>
>> Everything that can possibly be added to what I did say that meets my
>> spec and does form a computer science computation never results in P
>> reaching its final state.
>>
>> There is no weasel wording around this.
>>
>
> Nope, Your P fails to meet the definition of a Computation. PERIOD.

I said that there is no possible H such that P halts.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/21 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 2:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/13/21 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 1:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/21 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/21 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/21 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that True Genius is actually able to show the target
>>>>>>>> after they have hit it, as they understand things so well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to people that are stuck in rebuttal mode that don't really
>>>>>>> give a rat's ass for the actual truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are shooting at a target that doesn't actually exist, shown
>>>>>>>> by the fact that you can't even use the right terminology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, maybe there is a Target you can see that others don't, but
>>>>>>>> you don't seem to understand how to get there. If you really do
>>>>>>>> have some great idea of a new structure of knowledge, then you
>>>>>>>> need to start at the basics and work up, not start at the end of
>>>>>>>> a road that has its structure locked and disagrees with what you
>>>>>>>> want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, True Genius understands what they are talking about well
>>>>>> enough to answer the rebuttals. You just ignore them, showing that
>>>>>> you don't really understand what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True Genius also understands how to distinguish the difference
>>>>> between an actual rebuttal and a very subtle strawman error.
>>>>>
>>>>> True Genius understands that any rebuttal to the strawman based
>>>>> fake rebuttal is a total waste of time.
>>>>
>>>> And the deluded person thinks everything is a strawman and the world
>>>> is out the get them.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only rational approach to the very persistent tactic of the
>>>>> strawman error is to make the assertion so precise that fake
>>>>> rebuttals can be objectively discerned.
>>>>>
>>>>> _P()
>>>>> [00001a5e](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00001a5f](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001a61](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001a64](01)  50              push eax        // push P
>>>>> [00001a65](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001a68](01)  51              push ecx        // push P
>>>>> [00001a69](05)  e810000000      call 00001a7e   // call H
>>>>> [00001a6e](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>> [00001a71](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>> [00001a72](01)  c3              ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001a72]
>>>>>
>>>>> If when every H in the universe invoked from machine address
>>>>> 00001a7e takes a 100% specific byte sequence as the definition of
>>>>> its P input and no element of this infinite set ever results in P
>>>>> reaching its final state then we know that this P never halts and
>>>>> every H that returns 0 is a correct halt decider for this specific P.
>>>>
>>>> Except you have the basic problem wrong. First, that byte sequence
>>>> does NOT fully define P as defined by Compuation Theory, so you have
>>>> shown that you don't understand that basics of the problem.
>>>>
>>> Everything that can possibly be added to what I did say that meets my
>>> spec and does form a computer science computation never results in P
>>> reaching its final state.
>>>
>>> There is no weasel wording around this.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, Your P fails to meet the definition of a Computation. PERIOD.
>
> I said that there is no possible H such that P halts.
>

Which is false since if H just returns, then P clearly halts.

DO you want to think again?