Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

devel / comp.theory / Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

SubjectAuthor
* Question for OlcottMr Flibble
`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 +* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Richard Damon
 |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | |     `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |     `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |      `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       | +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       | |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       | | `- Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |   +- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |     `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |      +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |      |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |      | `- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |      `* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       +* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       |`* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | +* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |+- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | |`* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | | +- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | | `* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |   +* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |`* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   | `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   +* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]André G. Isaak
 |       |       | |   |   |`* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   | `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]André G. Isaak
 |       |       | |   |   |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |   +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Python
 |       |       | |   |   |   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |   |    +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |    `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |     `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |   `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |    `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |     `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |      `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |       `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |        +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |        `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |         +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |         `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |          +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |          `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |           +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |           `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |            +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |            +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Daniel Pehoushek
 |       |       | |            `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |             +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |             `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |              +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |              `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |               +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |               `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                 +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                 `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                  +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                   +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                    +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                    `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |       `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |        `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |         `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 +* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Alan Mackenzie
 |+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Malcolm McLean
 ||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Alan Mackenzie
 |||`- Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 ||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Ben
 |||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Richard Damon
 ||||`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Ben
 |||| `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]olcott
 ||||  `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]Richard Damon
 ||||   `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]olcott
 |||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Malcolm McLean
 |||`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Jeff Barnett
 ||`- Question for Olcott [ technical competence ]olcott
 |`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 `- Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]wij

Pages:123456
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33037&group=comp.theory#33037

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 11:25:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 11:25:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com>
<ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com>
<iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 240
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Zddlwp3/jfz94kKxC3jfhYLZTas6hKYEsgtbwuddtT03gjVmcBloSdJivWYhWLooCq8jHKc0NAAGmEl!Jmqh6FlcTjBsQ8rKf68+UUoJilnve/jpJaxTGRd9SJtOGEEhHJTDb+GsY/2gC77SGRGVwwVJLqQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 16268
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 16:25 UTC

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


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33038&group=comp.theory#33038

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:118e:b0:2f9:2aa1:71a9 with SMTP id m14-20020a05622a118e00b002f92aa171a9mr12947248qtk.190.1653411255534;
Tue, 24 May 2022 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:6d94:0:b0:2ff:ce26:92cf with SMTP id
i142-20020a816d94000000b002ffce2692cfmr13702744ywc.513.1653411255332; Tue, 24
May 2022 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com> <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com> <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com> <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com> <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com> <ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 16:54:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 18311
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 16:54 UTC

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


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33040&group=comp.theory#33040

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 12:44:15 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 12:44:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com>
<ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com>
<iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 256
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-nHcGzhuLzfPZVPDiLxUsLfG2qyHj5aqwcigRj1oJCHffq/U3fQi6l8fR4PlEMrX5Zfwc7Gr08jl5Wnh!jccS9Q4ockXOqEkPs8bzoc3y+4cAoHIXMVL9+1OUmz3uNtUFqlDcNjRRO8p/kxjBTVZ8i3rtLc0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 17223
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 17:44 UTC

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


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33041&group=comp.theory#33041

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4454:b0:6a3:6f0c:4e86 with SMTP id w20-20020a05620a445400b006a36f0c4e86mr10052696qkp.229.1653415056439;
Tue, 24 May 2022 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d801:0:b0:2fe:feb2:242a with SMTP id
a1-20020a0dd801000000b002fefeb2242amr29369748ywe.127.1653415056223; Tue, 24
May 2022 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com> <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com> <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com> <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com> <ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 17:57:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 19423
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 17:57 UTC

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


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]

<t6j6l8$p58$1@news.muc.de>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33042&group=comp.theory#33042

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news-peer.in.tum.de!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: acm...@muc.de (Alan Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 18:03:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <t6j6l8$p58$1@news.muc.de>
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6i5lg$djs$1@news.muc.de> <c-2dna4lvJnQbRH_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 18:03:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
logging-data="25768"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.4.5-20201224 ("Glen Albyn") (FreeBSD/12.3-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
 by: Alan Mackenzie - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:03 UTC

olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 3:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:

>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

>>>> ?

>>>> /Flibble

>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>> validation.

>> You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
>> Olcott is incorrect.

You still evade Mr Flibble's original question.

>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>> is correct.

>> No it doesn't. You don't understand the big words in that sentence.

>>> This means that everyone that disagrees is either insufficiently
>>> technically competent or a liar.

>> And that's the sort of denigration which is wholly uncalled for, and has
>> brought the level of this newsgroup down from debating to abuse.

>> [ .... ]

>>> --
>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

Your being harsh on people is like a young child's tantrum, protesting at
things he doesn't yet understand. What you call "an easily verifiable
fact" is in fact a falsehood. Everybody else in this group has pointed
this out with explanations, and you have simply ignored these
explanations. It is overwhelmingly more likely that you are mistaken,
than that all these other people are wrong.

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

That you call people who disagree with you liars is nauseatingly
conceited. I think, though I can't be sure, you know you are wrong, and
this would make you the liar. The alternative, which I'm prepared to
believe, is that your intellect just isn't up to dealing with the
abstractions in the current topic, and your bluster is an attempt to
cover this up. If so, that is doomed to failure.

> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33043&group=comp.theory#33043

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:04:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:04:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com>
<ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com>
<iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 276
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-OQrC9T+HjR1McqXxuiJ8g9LH1oRMIS52T9k9jD1hyVxaRUItMKTRj4D9T7dZOWhUpY2z8PoDXmSvpjq!qzCCoRa363pSmZQMQvwPvCs+0da/xhkmF6uFvDe27HGRukj57EdiZaFes/RtqPXS7t9iD9NPPMU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 18769
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:04 UTC

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


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<ee0fc392-0d7e-4dff-888e-39df1b5bd1e3n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33044&group=comp.theory#33044

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:28c7:b0:6a0:5de3:e6 with SMTP id l7-20020a05620a28c700b006a05de300e6mr18346016qkp.464.1653415754593;
Tue, 24 May 2022 11:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:e0cb:0:b0:64f:7b57:8a6a with SMTP id
x194-20020a25e0cb000000b0064f7b578a6amr17150725ybg.24.1653415754340; Tue, 24
May 2022 11:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 11:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:2b00:774c:5000:1438:56b4:fdc9:9f66;
posting-account=wr2KGQoAAADwR6kcaFpOhQvlGldc1Uke
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:2b00:774c:5000:1438:56b4:fdc9:9f66
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com> <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com> <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com> <ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ee0fc392-0d7e-4dff-888e-39df1b5bd1e3n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: pehoush...@gmail.com (Daniel Pehoushek)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 18:09:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Daniel Pehoushek - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:09 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong.. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
> >>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>
> >>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>> correct.
> >>>
> >>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >
> > You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
> >
> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>
> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
> with me.
> > Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
> >
> > Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
> >
> >> I am saying that on the basis of categorically exhaustive reasoning the
> >> category of (b) is proven to be incorrect thus leaving the category of
> >> (a) as correct.
> >
> > Correct categorically exhaustive reasoning would be:
> >
> > Given M(w), if for all possible simulating halt deciders D, if D(M,w)==0 then non-halting is correct. If any D(M,w)==1 then halting is correct.
> >
> > Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 but Hb(Pa,Pa)==1, therefore Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is incorrect.
> >
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur Schopenhauer
writer says
doan give me a bucket please
esploding balloon bags in an emergencys systemz
while
i
Click here to read the complete article

Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]

<8pSdnVMGxJF-ghD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33045&group=comp.theory#33045

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:11:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:11:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6i5lg$djs$1@news.muc.de>
<c-2dna4lvJnQbRH_nZ2dnUU7_81QAAAA@giganews.com> <t6j6l8$p58$1@news.muc.de>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t6j6l8$p58$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <8pSdnVMGxJF-ghD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 95
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ADT3rHfeOjq6iVkTrMT/QtJdpP4snK0tVTnrsG9/aR7EguUhKNK59Ttg4kBqVeyVEMe2kcbdT1NuUA8!d2ZViaHoqoYdXJxT5oA/sG7J7/Q91p/KROVH7b0/quzkJXTc6hhvdMK+XBxSunWIKZ16xOXTdJ4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4565
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:11 UTC

On 5/24/2022 1:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 3:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>
>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>
>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>
>>>>> ?
>
>>>>> /Flibble
>
>
>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>> validation.
>
>>> You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
>>> Olcott is incorrect.
>
> You still evade Mr Flibble's original question.
>

When I answer a question with the reasoning behind the correct answer
this is not evading the question.

>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>> is correct.
>
>>> No it doesn't. You don't understand the big words in that sentence.
>
>>>> This means that everyone that disagrees is either insufficiently
>>>> technically competent or a liar.
>
>>> And that's the sort of denigration which is wholly uncalled for, and has
>>> brought the level of this newsgroup down from debating to abuse.
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>
>
>> If people would not disagree with easily verifiable facts for the sole
>> purpose of being disagreeable I would not be so harsh on them.
>
> Your being harsh on people is like a young child's tantrum, protesting at
> things he doesn't yet understand.

> What you call "an easily verifiable
> fact" is in fact a falsehood. Everybody else in this group has pointed
> this out with explanations, and you have simply ignored these
> explanations. It is overwhelmingly more likely that you are mistaken,
> than that all these other people are wrong.
>
>> When people disagree with what they know are verified facts this
>> objectively makes them liars.
>
> That you call people who disagree with you liars is nauseatingly
> conceited. I think, though I can't be sure, you know you are wrong, and
> this would make you the liar. The alternative, which I'm prepared to
> believe, is that your intellect just isn't up to dealing with the
> abstractions in the current topic, and your bluster is an attempt to
> cover this up. If so, that is doomed to failure.
>

It is so dead obvious that when the C function H returns 0 on its input
(P,P) indicating that the correct simulation of this input would never
reach its "ret" instruction that this cannot be reasonably construed as
an honest mistake by my reviewers.

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33046&group=comp.theory#33046

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:238d:b0:461:d89a:e1f3 with SMTP id fw13-20020a056214238d00b00461d89ae1f3mr22435721qvb.118.1653416403452;
Tue, 24 May 2022 11:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:4ac2:0:b0:651:6dff:26f7 with SMTP id
x185-20020a254ac2000000b006516dff26f7mr4933391yba.518.1653416403282; Tue, 24
May 2022 11:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 11:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com> <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com> <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com> <ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 18:20:03 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:20 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong.. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
> >>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>
> >>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>> correct.
> >>>
> >>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >
> > You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
> >
> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33047&group=comp.theory#33047

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:29:00 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:28:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com>
<ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com>
<iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 302
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-C2j5uGTgYPAQuOeEa4Wk7yP/m0bE1+XmA+KFEBCGEmqAI8prAPxumQqFkF5oAK1YeQtc34gC97RqW5y!qWctRHiK+wyES5Oi+5ftqC8a7YruDbWDMQ4xaDUPJx7UkvD8MbJZkxsX+vdg5f2Ruyj3P8vTxmI=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 20408
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:28 UTC

On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
>>>>>
>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
>>>>>
>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
>>>
>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
>>>
>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>
> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
>
> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
>
>>
>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
>> with me.
>
> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]

<t6j93g$h2k$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33048&group=comp.theory#33048

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 12:45:03 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <t6j93g$h2k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <%3ZiK.132$921.22@fx37.iad>
<G9idnYLLS60_whH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <pP2jK.3832$lW.2248@fx38.iad>
<XbqdnZTAdLuLdRH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6iu07$ohj$1@dont-email.me>
<yP2dneG0b4pCnxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 18:45:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="641a1a5b7784cadc7217ee32ef681d26";
logging-data="17492"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wj39gZJ5NccWbaHNUwYrx"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3oK4vlNq8w5DNNhFHtttSTFvWVg=
In-Reply-To: <yP2dneG0b4pCnxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:45 UTC

On 2022-05-24 10:07, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 10:35 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-24 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2022 5:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/24/22 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>> (1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, already explained.
>>>
>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>
>> So why don't you produce some technically competent software engineers
>> who agree with you?
>>
>
> That seem to be the next logical step.

No, that would be a logically PRIOR step.

You can't assert what technically competent software engineers would
agree with until you have actually consulted some.

And let's be very clear, you are *not* a competent software engineer
even if you like to play one on usenet. Can you find an actual software
engineer with actual credentials who supports any of your claims? Until
you can produce such people you shouldn't be making any claims about
what they would or would not agree with.

André

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Good computer science shows that a halt decider must
>>>>> compute the mapping from its input finite strings to an accept or
>>>>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by
>>>>> its input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, is CAN only compute an answer from a finite algorithm from
>>>> its input, but such an answer doesn't match the definition of the
>>>> problem, so a machine that computes the Halting Function can't exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A computer scientist with sufficient technical competence would
>>> disagree.
>>
>> So why don't you produce some technically competent computer
>> scientists who agree with you?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Since there is zero wiggle room of subjective interpretation on the
> software engineering side such that everyone disagreeing is either
> technically incompetent or a liar it makes sense to have this aspect
> sustained first.
>
> Then on the basis of H(P,P)==0 having been sustained by a consensus of
> competent software engineers I would present my work to competent
> computer scientists that may not have the software engineering technical
> background to sustain H(P,P)==0.
>

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

Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33049&group=comp.theory#33049

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:20ec:b0:461:dc16:163d with SMTP id 12-20020a05621420ec00b00461dc16163dmr22552857qvk.40.1653417950228;
Tue, 24 May 2022 11:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:d:b0:2d0:e02a:6cda with SMTP id
bc13-20020a05690c000d00b002d0e02a6cdamr31356334ywb.192.1653417950029; Tue, 24
May 2022 11:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 11:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com> <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com> <ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com> <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 18:45:50 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:45 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort..
> >>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >>>
> >>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
> >>>
> >> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> >> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
> >
> > So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
> >
> > Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
> >
> >>
> >> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
> >> with me.
> >
> > No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
> >
> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
> The same motive as any internet troll.
> >>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
> >>>
> >>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
> >
> > Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
> >
> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]

<y8mdnecaubIhtBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33050&group=comp.theory#33050

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:53:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:53:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <%3ZiK.132$921.22@fx37.iad>
<G9idnYLLS60_whH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <pP2jK.3832$lW.2248@fx38.iad>
<XbqdnZTAdLuLdRH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6iu07$ohj$1@dont-email.me>
<yP2dneG0b4pCnxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6j93g$h2k$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t6j93g$h2k$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <y8mdnecaubIhtBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 51
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zIYhV5BuKE6I9qOGsRbvg8K+03pVyjlLcvrggNCg0l1lD1Vaq0NkM8LujnfmpjOaApjPRCFof/W4fq+!kAr9/WkxYwBDDPfAdxV4vvZf3JWLEFXKPY3sOURx6WLSjRTIqtVJndFVEaPN7YEcnk08pjISn70=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3952
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:53 UTC

On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-24 10:07, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 10:35 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-24 08:13, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 5:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/24/22 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> (1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, already explained.
>>>>
>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would
>>>> disagree.
>>>
>>> So why don't you produce some technically competent software
>>> engineers who agree with you?
>>>
>>
>> That seem to be the next logical step.
>
> No, that would be a logically PRIOR step.
>
> You can't assert what technically competent software engineers would
> agree with until you have actually consulted some.
>

And in the same way no one can possibly know that 2 + 3 = 5 until after
a universal consensus of all mathematicians has first been achieved. If
one psychotic mathematician disagrees than this forever puts in doubt
whether or not 2 + 3 = 5 is actually correct.

> And let's be very clear, you are *not* a competent software engineer
> even if you like to play one on usenet. Can you find an actual software
> engineer with actual credentials who supports any of your claims? Until
> you can produce such people you shouldn't be making any claims about
> what they would or would not agree with.

The correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) conclusively proves
that this input P would never reach its "ret" instruction.

That people deny this easily verifiable fact makes them liars.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33051&group=comp.theory#33051

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:56:28 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:56:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com>
<ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com>
<iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
<XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 289
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-PPOFgDohB1raxo6q+K16R1qabweswcrKAOGHVPjufaxuyFS4ITwEfqXMqMthrWwhNT6+1tlmu6TawaZ!HrC+cNpybkne7Q5H0lMiFaIJBcj+BmhA8z1b0aAjTrRCtdrSZlMdrJUHD63SF5L5vafeD2rCu8c=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 20674
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 18:56 UTC

On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
>>>>>
>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>>>
>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
>>>
>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
>>>> with me.
>>>
>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
>>>
>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
>> The same motive as any internet troll.
>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
>>>
>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
>>>
>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>
> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33052&group=comp.theory#33052

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:596c:0:b0:45d:b08f:830f with SMTP id eq12-20020ad4596c000000b0045db08f830fmr22746645qvb.86.1653419173462;
Tue, 24 May 2022 12:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:fe04:0:b0:2fe:f6cb:a864 with SMTP id
j4-20020a81fe04000000b002fef6cba864mr29042284ywn.112.1653419173263; Tue, 24
May 2022 12:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 12:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8fa3f3-f3ba-421e-9aec-9685fa668a95n@googlegroups.com> <ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com> <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com> <y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 19:06:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 22843
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 19:06 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
> >>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> >>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
> >>>
> >>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
> >>>
> >>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
> >>>> with me.
> >>>
> >>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
> >>>
> >> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games..
> >> The same motive as any internet troll.
> >>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn..
> >>>
> >>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
> >>>
> >> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
> >> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
> >
> > Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
> It is the Assembly language source-code of P


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33053&group=comp.theory#33053

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 14:20:33 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 14:20:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com>
<iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
<XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
<y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 314
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JHRjp8YQUxdpQLdcXppSkQy+k2puQEkm3oiyUYhnpwev0Lpm08EtPQuO2LpZbNZUENO2/S2PSyqSsHn!/BLc9WgpCPcgLkMkhTPpGELf6S968tIUiJUag1+Qt/R0OwYYsrKpSeb+OkZoB4lJQeIn+PxWMkU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 22472
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 19:20 UTC

On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>>>>>
>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
>>>>>
>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
>>>>>
>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>
>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
>
> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33054&group=comp.theory#33054

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5962:0:b0:462:11fe:b67c with SMTP id eq2-20020ad45962000000b0046211feb67cmr17080759qvb.50.1653420756873;
Tue, 24 May 2022 12:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:e657:0:b0:2fe:eed7:61e9 with SMTP id
p84-20020a0de657000000b002feeed761e9mr30198979ywe.417.1653420756650; Tue, 24
May 2022 12:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 12:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <ytednerRyvP0dBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f9b7d147-b5fa-485f-ba8f-62b308727f92n@googlegroups.com> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com> <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com> <y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com> <M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 19:32:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 25122
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 19:32 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
> >>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>>>>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> >>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
> >>>>>> with me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
> >>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
> >>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
> >>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
> >>>
> >>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
> >> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
> >
> > And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
>
> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
> relationship with P.
>
> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33055&group=comp.theory#33055

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 14:40:39 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 14:40:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
<XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
<y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>
<M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 307
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-h6FWXeUfpLTRhsEIbAS8rg4UfyjbzbxKUFzNRObXaaPniIwUuHHxRsQOt8+q6Ga42SC5wDM5+JfaT5+!+6F2BsaYfZGbEjwAzPu033TBQ3afOdvMNEcaLQi2uySeBkE9EfKytwsWplZcq3fT4TRmo6Qow4A=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 22848
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 19:40 UTC

On 5/24/2022 2:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
>>>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
>>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
>>>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
>>>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
>>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
>>>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
>>>
>>> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
>> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
>>
>> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
>> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
>> relationship with P.
>>
>> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
>> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
>> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>
> By definition they are the same. Unless you can provide an accepted external reference, there is no exception for self reference.
>
> The difference in the traces is that Ha incorrectly reports non-halting behavior and aborts too soon, while Hb continues to simulate to a final state.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33056&group=comp.theory#33056

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9442:0:b0:699:fd32:bc7d with SMTP id w63-20020a379442000000b00699fd32bc7dmr18427326qkd.615.1653421807236;
Tue, 24 May 2022 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ca83:0:b0:64f:75d8:9219 with SMTP id
a125-20020a25ca83000000b0064f75d89219mr19199367ybg.251.1653421807064; Tue, 24
May 2022 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 12:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <iaidnS4i7evcbxH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1bd4fc97-8a2d-47ec-8b48-910fbc7d0cc3n@googlegroups.com> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com> <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com> <y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com> <M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com> <TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 19:50:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 25350
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 19:50 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 2:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon.. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> >>>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
> >>>>>>>> with me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
> >>>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
> >>>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
> >>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
> >>>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
> >>>
> >>> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
> >> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
> >>
> >> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
> >> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
> >> relationship with P.
> >>
> >> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
> >> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
> >> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >
> > By definition they are the same. Unless you can provide an accepted external reference, there is no exception for self reference.
> >
> > The difference in the traces is that Ha incorrectly reports non-halting behavior and aborts too soon, while Hb continues to simulate to a final state.
> I am giving up on you, you are nothing but a God damned liar.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]

<t6jd6c$1706$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33057&group=comp.theory#33057

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 21:54:54 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t6jd6c$1706$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <%3ZiK.132$921.22@fx37.iad>
<G9idnYLLS60_whH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <pP2jK.3832$lW.2248@fx38.iad>
<XbqdnZTAdLuLdRH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6iu07$ohj$1@dont-email.me>
<yP2dneG0b4pCnxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6j93g$h2k$1@dont-email.me>
<y8mdnecaubIhtBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39942"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Content-Language: fr
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Tue, 24 May 2022 19:54 UTC

Peter Olcott wrote:
> The correct x86 emulation

Can I have Risc V emulation instead? With ranch sauce, thanks.

Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<ysKdnR7Ph9ewpxD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33058&group=comp.theory#33058

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:03:57 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:03:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
<XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
<y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>
<M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com>
<TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <ysKdnR7Ph9ewpxD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 332
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1NfNTuWGgy/Ykt71D/98B4HzcdIbhIjvie2O9NvSpgZO0aDxxhsSw8hRGEXbq2KJfh5sU8VxuVwzRXy!SfM5JEgFT6mKys5zW9M1HY4ZJTBqh1WkxwHq93qvEkXfRC6RD1OsGHaFdQFbuVe2pOffUTIB83g=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 24550
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 20:03 UTC

On 5/24/2022 2:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 2:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
>>>>>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
>>>>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
>>>>>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
>>>>>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
>>>>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
>>>>>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
>>>>>
>>>>> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
>>>> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
>>>>
>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
>>>> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
>>>> relationship with P.
>>>>
>>>> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
>>>> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
>>>> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>
>>> By definition they are the same. Unless you can provide an accepted external reference, there is no exception for self reference.
>>>
>>> The difference in the traces is that Ha incorrectly reports non-halting behavior and aborts too soon, while Hb continues to simulate to a final state.
>> I am giving up on you, you are nothing but a God damned liar.
>
> I'm telling you the truth that you don't want to hear.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<b77ed2b8-6bb2-474b-ade1-f4264a353a07n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33059&group=comp.theory#33059

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2d44:0:b0:6a3:2bf1:a6b3 with SMTP id t65-20020a372d44000000b006a32bf1a6b3mr17811589qkh.293.1653423552963;
Tue, 24 May 2022 13:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d213:0:b0:655:81e1:36c5 with SMTP id
j19-20020a25d213000000b0065581e136c5mr2605329ybg.347.1653423552759; Tue, 24
May 2022 13:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 13:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ysKdnR7Ph9ewpxD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <2N6dnS-hwLNxnRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fa335a59-9e46-4e60-9300-279b8f3e1162n@googlegroups.com> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com> <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com> <y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com> <M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com> <TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com> <ysKdnR7Ph9ewpxD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b77ed2b8-6bb2-474b-ade1-f4264a353a07n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 20:19:12 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 26243
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 20:19 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:04:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 2:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 2:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> >>>>>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
> >>>>>>>>>> with me.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
> >>>>>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
> >>>>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
> >>>>>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
> >>>> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
> >>>> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
> >>>> relationship with P.
> >>>>
> >>>> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
> >>>> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
> >>>> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>
> >>> By definition they are the same. Unless you can provide an accepted external reference, there is no exception for self reference.
> >>>
> >>> The difference in the traces is that Ha incorrectly reports non-halting behavior and aborts too soon, while Hb continues to simulate to a final state.
> >> I am giving up on you, you are nothing but a God damned liar.
> >
> > I'm telling you the truth that you don't want to hear.
> You know that any fully competent software engineer can easily determine
> that the correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<lYGdnaYAooXR2RD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33060&group=comp.theory#33060

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:47:08 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 15:47:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
<XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
<y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>
<M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com>
<TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com>
<ysKdnR7Ph9ewpxD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b77ed2b8-6bb2-474b-ade1-f4264a353a07n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b77ed2b8-6bb2-474b-ade1-f4264a353a07n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <lYGdnaYAooXR2RD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 320
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-y0QFqvHRqDK7f1nGQzcqJFRtFyGYVLuRMjhBOFhx4HCvT0RWjOdLn7FG7T0Jeof767wbdCCcl2rSgU0!CL5pozgs3T/ekTUhnXkmK1JE7sEGb0/5EsBzJSLk+kLkCCaBTdLwBerbNuU2e0cdD5CxMNiPRz0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 24803
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 20:47 UTC

On 5/24/2022 3:19 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:04:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 2:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
>>>>>>>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
>>>>>>>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
>>>>>> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
>>>>>> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
>>>>>> relationship with P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
>>>>>> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
>>>>>> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>
>>>>> By definition they are the same. Unless you can provide an accepted external reference, there is no exception for self reference.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference in the traces is that Ha incorrectly reports non-halting behavior and aborts too soon, while Hb continues to simulate to a final state.
>>>> I am giving up on you, you are nothing but a God damned liar.
>>>
>>> I'm telling you the truth that you don't want to hear.
>> You know that any fully competent software engineer can easily determine
>> that the correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P)
>
> Is performed by Hb(Pa,Pa) which shows that a final state is reached and proves that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<b0138a8d-7ff4-446b-930c-12588375c444n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33062&group=comp.theory#33062

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2552:b0:67b:32e2:2400 with SMTP id s18-20020a05620a255200b0067b32e22400mr17654723qko.768.1653426023738;
Tue, 24 May 2022 14:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d213:0:b0:655:81e1:36c5 with SMTP id
j19-20020a25d213000000b0065581e136c5mr2760453ybg.347.1653426023540; Tue, 24
May 2022 14:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 14:00:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lYGdnaYAooXR2RD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <4_SdnRCHHLbbmBD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c331f562-1a6a-4167-9c75-b9e371f9fb25n@googlegroups.com> <vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com> <pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com> <W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com> <XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com> <y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com> <M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com> <TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com> <ysKdnR7Ph9ewpxD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b77ed2b8-6bb2-474b-ade1-f4264a353a07n@googlegroups.com> <lYGdnaYAooXR2RD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b0138a8d-7ff4-446b-930c-12588375c444n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 21:00:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 27081
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 21:00 UTC

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:47:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 3:19 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:04:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2022 2:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/2022 2:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
> >>>>>>>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
> >>>>>>>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
> >>>>>> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
> >>>>>> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
> >>>>>> relationship with P.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
> >>>>>> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
> >>>>>> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By definition they are the same. Unless you can provide an accepted external reference, there is no exception for self reference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The difference in the traces is that Ha incorrectly reports non-halting behavior and aborts too soon, while Hb continues to simulate to a final state.
> >>>> I am giving up on you, you are nothing but a God damned liar.
> >>>
> >>> I'm telling you the truth that you don't want to hear.
> >> You know that any fully competent software engineer can easily determine
> >> that the correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P)
> >
> > Is performed by Hb(Pa,Pa) which shows that a final state is reached and proves that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong.
> No this merely yet again proves that you are a lying cheating bastard.
> I am referring to H at machine address 000011a2. Since Hb is not at
> machine address 000011a2 and you know it this proves that you are a
> lying cheating bastard.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<Kdedne9Z8uOf1hD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33064&group=comp.theory#33064

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 16:15:46 -0500
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 16:15:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<vOWdnWROrtiRmhD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<5688511a-e34c-4db9-8380-544300f2932fn@googlegroups.com>
<pvedncPnYI_yhBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3be80365-1ec0-4707-8bdc-67f74d5e4995n@googlegroups.com>
<W5ednaScR7zdgxD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b306abea-8f6b-44fa-ba80-9096abe0f7adn@googlegroups.com>
<XrCdnVzD3_ZxvhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e03f64c4-bbd2-4d01-ad9c-4c77df9cb286n@googlegroups.com>
<y8mdneYaubLBtxD_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<aa55903f-7a6b-4b53-a43e-fe44e54d1e60n@googlegroups.com>
<M9idnRW6ELOcrRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ee8f0ac0-ca93-4baa-add8-4da2fcdfb05dn@googlegroups.com>
<TtqdnR2qaJYqqRD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<07e31cb3-6e9d-42aa-a54a-edcf444bdc24n@googlegroups.com>
<ysKdnR7Ph9ewpxD_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b77ed2b8-6bb2-474b-ade1-f4264a353a07n@googlegroups.com>
<lYGdnaYAooXR2RD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b0138a8d-7ff4-446b-930c-12588375c444n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b0138a8d-7ff4-446b-930c-12588375c444n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Kdedne9Z8uOf1hD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 348
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e3BZj4zVFhj59BRRY+bJUMNYUEM6M1dwap0Z2qSlmixKKGtk9XG1qBHwqHzRQTWdcuxfGVtBnhYKoQU!TcDlOFcszs1GsZYxVayQ7MFOi5zQc8/xKtL4YGYqxBrtIQXI5a9WlhmWBygK/bbkRmwR8ajxGPM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 26597
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 21:15 UTC

On 5/24/2022 4:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:47:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 3:19 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 4:04:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:40:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 3:20:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 2:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:56:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:29:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 1:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 2:04:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 12:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 1:44:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:54 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:25:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:22 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 12:18:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 11:15 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 10:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing is baseless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the Jackass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie that I never explained it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with the below statement. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the simulated input to H1(P,P) has a different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace than the simulated input to H(P,P) because H1 does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self evident that the difference in the execution trace of H1(Pa,Pa) an Ha(Pa,Pa) is because Ha aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless H(P,P) aborts the simulation of its input its simulation would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. Because you already know this that makes you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "unless" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does abort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are two hypothetically possible definitions of H:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) H aborts its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Ha which is called by Pa
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H that does not abort its input at some point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. Hn which is called by Pn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because (b) would result in an infinite simulation we know that (a) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words, you claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I don't make that claim at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You may not realize it, but that's *exactly* what you're saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying if X is not an animal then X is not a dog. You are saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that if X is not an animal then X might still be a Chi Hua Hua.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So nothing but a bad analogy. Which means you have no response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether you think so or not, you are making the claim that because Pn(Pn) does not halt, Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case technically competent people that are not liars would agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one you've spoken to has any reason to lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure they do animosity and the sadistic pleasure of playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The same motive as any internet troll.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each different H has a different P built from it, and each of those P's are distinct computations, totally unrelated to each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa has a fixed algorithm which uses Ha and *only* Ha. If you say "what if Ha was changed to be the same as Hn" then you no longer have Ha but instead have Hn, and subsequently you no longer have Pa but instead have Pn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read this again (or for the first time, given your attention span) and make sure you understand it, and be prepared to respond to it. Otherwise you're admitting that you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that 5 != 6 proves that 5 == 6 is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its "ret" instruction proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) does not perform a correct simulation as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == 1 and by the definition of the correct answer, i.e. Pa(Pa) halts so 1 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>> It is the Assembly language source-code of P
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the source code of Ha because it is part of the complete program that is Pa. Which also means that Hb(Pa,Pa) and Ha(Pa,Pa) are necessarily deciding on the same thing.
>>>>>>>> We can see by the actual correct execution trace that this is false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input reaches its "ret"
>>>>>>>> instruction when Ha has a pathological self-reference (Olcott 2004)
>>>>>>>> relationship with P.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is not at all the same as Hb(Pa,Pa) is deciding whether or not its input
>>>>>>>> reaches its "ret" instruction when Hb DOES NOT HAVE a pathological
>>>>>>>> self-reference (Olcott 2004) relationship with P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By definition they are the same. Unless you can provide an accepted external reference, there is no exception for self reference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference in the traces is that Ha incorrectly reports non-halting behavior and aborts too soon, while Hb continues to simulate to a final state.
>>>>>> I am giving up on you, you are nothing but a God damned liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm telling you the truth that you don't want to hear.
>>>> You know that any fully competent software engineer can easily determine
>>>> that the correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>>
>>> Is performed by Hb(Pa,Pa) which shows that a final state is reached and proves that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong.
>> No this merely yet again proves that you are a lying cheating bastard.
>> I am referring to H at machine address 000011a2. Since Hb is not at
>> machine address 000011a2 and you know it this proves that you are a
>> lying cheating bastard.
>
> It doesn't matter what address Hb and Ha are at. What matters is that there's no exception for self reference and you know it.


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:123456
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.8
clearnet tor