On 5/24/2022 4:58 AM, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>
>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>
>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>> in favour of the revision.
>
> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
> opinion".
>
>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>
> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.

I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true. I'm
assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math (etc.) buff
and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. This book, as
well as many others written by him or others, go through the history of
mathematics and show examples where the whole community has bought a
load of rope.

Example: The mathematical community was using the "fact" that a series
of continuous functions that converged at every point in the domain had
as a limit a continuous function. Meanwhile the same community was using
Fourier series to represent *discontinuous* functions as the limit of
continuous functions (a few sine and cosine terms each). This trip
though la la land promoted the discovery of uniform continuity and why
it wasn't the same as simple continuity.

Another example was the belief in Euler's formula relating the number of
edges, sides. and vertices of polyhedrons. That formula went through
between half and a dozen revisions over time to get it correct; some
correcting the theorem, some the proof, and others redefining polyhedrons.

There are many other examples. I suggest the above book to get a glimpse
of the type of gaffs made by professional strength mathematicians. It's
quite hilarious and quite illuminating. For anyone taking there first
spin though Lakatos, try this exercise: What's the difference between
Euler making a mistake and PO making a mistake? The internet has brought
fools and giants into the same playground and sometimes it's hard to
sort the players out.

For the many or most of you who read the above and forget Lakatos, bring
the memory back in focus and savor it. It's all the more delicious now
than it was forty plus years ago for me.

<SNIP>
--
Jeff Barnett

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:15:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> For the time being I am only referring to when the C function named H
> determines whether or not its correct x86 emulation

On 5/24/2022 4:49 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:15:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>> For the time being I am only referring to when the C function named H
>> determines whether or not its correct x86 emulation
>
> Which has not been established

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:54:17 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 4:49 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 5:15:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> For the time being I am only referring to when the C function named H
> >> determines whether or not its correct x86 emulation
> >
> > Which has not been established
> Liar Liar pants on fire.
> _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]
> In software engineering terms: H(P,P) correctly determines that its
> correctly emulated input never reaches its "ret" instruction.

Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:

> On 5/24/2022 4:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>>
>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>
>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>>> in favour of the revision.
>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>> opinion".
>>
>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>
> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true. I'm
> assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math (etc.) buff
> and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. This book, as
> well as many others written by him or others, go through the history
> of mathematics and show examples where the whole community has bought
> a load of rope.

I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It sounds
really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to world-class
library :-(

But it's not certain we are talking about the same things here. I'm
aware of gaffs and wholesale buying into bunk, but that's not the same
as proved theorems. Sure, almost no theorems are proved in the entirely
rigorous sense, but that's still a reasonably high bar.

And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so simple
they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite unprecedented,
and simply not possible for the vast majority of theorems.

--
Ben.

On 5/24/22 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Well, in THIS case everyone else is agreeing that 2 + 3 = 5, and YOU are
the psychotic who disagrees.

Remember,"Everyone" agrees that the Halting Problem can't be solved, but
YOU are the "lone voice" disagreeing.

You CLAIM that "Any technically competent software engineer" would agree
with your claim, but apparently so far you have found ZERO who do, and
there are a number here who disagee, so you have a stange meaning for
that any (In that usage, it normally means all, or at least the vast
majority, not just that you can find 1).

>
>> 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.
>

Except that it doesn't. because H is not a correct emulator when it
aborts its simulation, by the definition of correct emulation.

On 5/24/2022 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/24/22 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, in THIS case everyone else is agreeing that 2 + 3 = 5, and YOU are
> the psychotic who disagrees.
>
> Remember,"Everyone" agrees that the Halting Problem can't be solved, but
> YOU are the "lone voice" disagreeing.
>
> You CLAIM that "Any technically competent software engineer" would agree
> with your claim, but apparently so far you have found ZERO who do, and
> there are a number here who disagee, so you have a stange meaning for
> that any (In that usage, it normally means all, or at least the vast
> majority, not just that you can find 1).
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Except that it doesn't. because H is not a correct emulator when it
> aborts its simulation, by the definition of correct emulation.
>

H(P,P) correctly determines that its input never reaches its "ret"
instruction. This is a verified fact that several God damned liars deny.

_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]

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 5/24/2022 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/24/22 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, in THIS case everyone else is agreeing that 2 + 3 = 5, and YOU are
> the psychotic who disagrees.
>
> Remember,"Everyone" agrees that the Halting Problem can't be solved, but
> YOU are the "lone voice" disagreeing.
>
> You CLAIM that "Any technically competent software engineer" would agree
> with your claim, but apparently so far you have found ZERO who do, and
> there are a number here who disagee, so you have a stange meaning for
> that any (In that usage, it normally means all, or at least the vast
> majority, not just that you can find 1).
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Except that it doesn't. because H is not a correct emulator when it
> aborts its simulation, by the definition of correct emulation.
>

_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 an easily verified fact that the correct x86 emulation of the
input to H(P,P) would never reach the "ret" instruction of P in 0 to
infinity steps of the correct x86 emulation of P by H.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 5/24/2022 4:59 PM, Ben wrote:
> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/24/2022 4:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>>>
>>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>>
>>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>>>> in favour of the revision.
>>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>>> opinion".
>>>
>>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
>>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>>> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
>>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>
>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true. I'm
>> assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math (etc.) buff
>> and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. This book, as
>> well as many others written by him or others, go through the history
>> of mathematics and show examples where the whole community has bought
>> a load of rope.
>
> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It sounds
> really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to world-class
> library :-(
>
> But it's not certain we are talking about the same things here. I'm
> aware of gaffs and wholesale buying into bunk, but that's not the same
> as proved theorems. Sure, almost no theorems are proved in the entirely
> rigorous sense, but that's still a reasonably high bar.
>
> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so simple
> they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite unprecedented,
> and simply not possible for the vast majority of theorems.
You WILL enjoy the book. Many consider it a classic and there are,
indeed, many instances where the entire body of mathematics want off the
rails for a period of time. This history was part of Hilbert's
motivation for proposing "The Program" that would provably put the
community on the right track for all time. We know how that turned out.
Copies are still available at Amazon.com, on this side, of the pond for
reasonable prices.

In the 1960's, articles/books by Kuhn and Lakatos were "required"
reading by those of us who had dropped out to play with computers as
were attempts to make Godel readable. (We tried to plow through copies
of his dissertation but the notation wasn't friendly. The same variable
names meant different things in consecutive theorems, lemmas, and
corollaries.)
--
Jeff Barnett

On 5/24/22 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 5:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/24/22 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 11:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/22 11:47 PM, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> No, they can confirm that it MUST be INCORECT by the requirement of H.
>>>>
>>>> P(P) will Halt if H(P,P) returns 0.
>>>>
>>>> H(P,P) is REQUIRED to return 1 if P(P) halts, that is the DEFINITION
>>>> of a Halting Decider, thus H is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> You are NOT allowed to change the Definition of the problem and
>>>> still claim to be working on the problem.
>>>>
>>>> That is like you saying it is ok to say "I have no dogs in my house"
>>>> when someone asks "Howmany Cats are in your houst?"
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of
>>>>> finite strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion
>>>>> for returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret"
>>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>>> Except that it DOESN'T correctly emulates its input if it aborts it.
>>>>
>>>> And your finite string that you claim is P doesn't define the
>>>> program P as it refers to code outside the string. (PROGRAMS are
>>>> complete, and Halting is defined on COMPLETE PROGRAMS).
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only other remaining objection is whether or not a halt decider
>>>>> must compute the mapping of its input finite strings to an accept
>>>>> or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually
>>>>> specified by its input OR SOME OTHER MEASURE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and the BEHAVIOR OF THE INPUT for H(P,P) IS *DEFINED* to be
>>>> whether P(P) Halts or not. Any other defintion and you are not
>>>> working on the Halting Problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a bunch of garbage that shows you don't know what you are
>>>> talking about. Detail reviews given previously.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is all that any of you have and good software engineering
>>>>> refutes the first and good computer science refutes the second.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, GOOD computer science shows that you are not good at computer
>>>> science and fail to comprehend even the basics of it.
>>>
>>> (1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>
>> Nope, already explained.
>
> A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.

On 5/24/22 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/24/22 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well, in THIS case everyone else is agreeing that 2 + 3 = 5, and YOU
>> are the psychotic who disagrees.
>>
>> Remember,"Everyone" agrees that the Halting Problem can't be solved,
>> but YOU are the "lone voice" disagreeing.
>>
>> You CLAIM that "Any technically competent software engineer" would
>> agree with your claim, but apparently so far you have found ZERO who
>> do, and there are a number here who disagee, so you have a stange
>> meaning for that any (In that usage, it normally means all, or at
>> least the vast majority, not just that you can find 1).
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Except that it doesn't. because H is not a correct emulator when it
>> aborts its simulation, by the definition of correct emulation.
>>
>
> _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 an easily verified fact that the correct x86 emulation of the
> input to H(P,P) would never reach the "ret" instruction of P in 0 to
> infinity steps of the correct x86 emulation of P by H.
>
>

Nope, the CORRECT simulation of this pattern:

On 4/27/21 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
Message-ID: <Teudndbu59GVBBr9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
> u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
> if (Input_Halts)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
>
> int main()
> {
> H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);
> }
>
>
> _H_Hat()
> [00000b98](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000b99](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>
[00000b9b](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000b9c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000b9f](01) 50 push eax
> [00000ba0](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000ba3](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000ba4](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> [00000ba9](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000bac](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00000baf](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [00000bb3](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> [00000bb5](02) ebfe jmp 00000bb5
> [00000bb7](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> [00000bb9](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bba](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00000bba]
>
> _main()
> [00000bc8](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000bc9](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000bcb](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> [00000bd0](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> [00000bd5](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> [00000bd8](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [00000bda](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bdb](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0020) [00000bdb]
>
> ===============================
> ...[00000bc8][001015d4][00000000](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000bc9][001015d4][00000000](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000bcb][001015d0][00000b98](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> ...[00000bd0][001015cc][00000bd5](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> ...[00000b98][001015c8][001015d4](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][001015c4][00000000](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][001015c4][00000000](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][001015c0][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][001015c0][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][001015bc][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][001015b8][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b98
> ...[00000b98][00211674][00211678](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][00211674][00211678](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][00211670][00201644](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][00211670][00201644](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0021166c][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0021166c][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][00211668][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][00211664][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> ...[00000b98][0025c09c][0025c0a0](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][0025c09c][0025c0a0](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][0025c098][0024c06c](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][0025c098][0024c06c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0025c094][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0025c094][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][0025c090][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][0025c08c][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

Above decision was from the call the Halts inside H_Hat, deciding that
H_Hat(H_Hat) seems to be non-halting, it then returns that answer and is
processed below:

> ...[00000ba9][001015c4][00000000](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> ...[00000bac][001015c4][00000000](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> ...[00000baf][001015c4][00000000](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> ...[00000bb3][001015c4][00000000](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> ...[00000bb7][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> ...[00000bb9][001015cc][00000bd5](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bba][001015d0][00000b98](01) c3 ret
> ...[00000bd5][001015d4][00000000](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> ...[00000bd8][001015d4][00000000](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> ...[00000bda][001015d8][00100000](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bdb][001015dc][00000098](01) c3 ret

On 5/24/22 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 9:54 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>>>>
>>>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>>>
>>>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>>>>> in favour of the revision.
>>>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>>>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>>>> opinion".
>>>>
>>>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>>>
>>>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>>>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong.  Complex proofs are often shown to
>>>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>>>> long before they become part of "informed opinion".  And while some
>>>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>>>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that
>>>> almost
>>>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>>>> actually find some is no surprise.  And if all subsets of N /were/
>>>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
>>>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>>>
>>> And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is working
>>> on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
>>> because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.
>>
>> Yes.  He has objected to Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Tarski and no doubt
>> others.  But if his knowledge of these topics was anything more than
>> superficial, he'd know that it's Cantor he needs to challenge.  In this
>> respect other cranks like WM get it right.  They at least know where it
>> all starts.  The trouble with Cantor's theorems (for people like PO) is
>> they are just simple maths and have no "real world" analogy you can use
>> to avoid talking maths.  Turing is the obvious target for people who
>> know programming.  It seems to be simply an engineering problem.
>>
>
> My infinitesimal number system does form a bijection between reals and
> immediately adjacent geometric points on a number line.

Do you even know what a "bijection" is?

The statement of a bijetion between reals and the immediately adjacent
geometric points sounds like just word hash.

Please provide this "Bijection" that shows how to make the bijection
pairing that matches EVERY point in one set to EXACTLY one point in the
other.

>
> The interval (0,1] is exactly one geometric point longer than the
> interval (0,1) thus making reals countable in some sense.

And one point in an uncountable set is not measurable and meaningless.

>
>> A while back, there was a movement in the US, driven by fundamentalist
>> evangelical Christians, to get uncountable sets off the maths
>> curriculum.  For some people, uncountability, incompleteness and
>> undecidability are the new "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium".  I
>> think quite a few objections to these theorems arise from some sort of
>> spiritual take on how the world "must" be constructed.
>>
>
>

On 5/24/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/24/22 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 9:54 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>>>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only
>>>>>> voice
>>>>>> in favour of the revision.
>>>>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>>>>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>>>>> opinion".
>>>>>
>>>>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>>>>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong.  Complex proofs are often
>>>>> shown to
>>>>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>>>>> long before they become part of "informed opinion".  And while some
>>>>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is
>>>>> not a
>>>>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>>>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that
>>>>> almost
>>>>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>>>>> actually find some is no surprise.  And if all subsets of N /were/
>>>>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you
>>>>> call
>>>>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>>>>
>>>> And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is working
>>>> on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
>>>> because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.
>>>
>>> Yes.  He has objected to Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Tarski and no doubt
>>> others.  But if his knowledge of these topics was anything more than
>>> superficial, he'd know that it's Cantor he needs to challenge.  In this
>>> respect other cranks like WM get it right.  They at least know where it
>>> all starts.  The trouble with Cantor's theorems (for people like PO) is
>>> they are just simple maths and have no "real world" analogy you can use
>>> to avoid talking maths.  Turing is the obvious target for people who
>>> know programming.  It seems to be simply an engineering problem.
>>>
>>
>> My infinitesimal number system does form a bijection between reals and
>> immediately adjacent geometric points on a number line.
>
> Do you even know what a "bijection" is?
>

It is a jection that is neither Gay nor Straight.

> The statement of a bijetion between reals and the immediately adjacent
> geometric points sounds like just word hash.
>

It is a one-to-one bi-directional mapping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection

> Please provide this "Bijection" that shows how to make the bijection
> pairing that matches EVERY point in one set to EXACTLY one point in the
> other.
>

From any specific point on the number line we can find its immediately
adjacent geometric points.

(0,1) the right endpoint of this interval is exactly one geometric point
(infinitesimal unit of measure) less than 1.0.

>>
>> The interval (0,1] is exactly one geometric point longer than the
>> interval (0,1) thus making reals countable in some sense.
>
> And one point in an uncountable set is not measurable and meaningless.
>

The only reason that reals have been uncountable is that no one
previously ever thought of a way to identify the numbers that are
immediately adjacent to every real number.

Everyone one always assumed that there is always a real number between
every pair of real numbers, thus making them uncountable.

As soon as we can identify the real numbers that are immediately
adjacent to every real number real numbers become countable.

The right endpoint of the interval (0,1) has zero real numbers between
it and the right endpoint of (0,1].

>>
>>> A while back, there was a movement in the US, driven by fundamentalist
>>> evangelical Christians, to get uncountable sets off the maths
>>> curriculum.  For some people, uncountability, incompleteness and
>>> undecidability are the new "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium".  I
>>> think quite a few objections to these theorems arise from some sort of
>>> spiritual take on how the world "must" be constructed.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 5/24/22 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/24/22 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2022 9:54 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>>>>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only
>>>>>>> voice
>>>>>>> in favour of the revision.
>>>>>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>>>>>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>>>>>> opinion".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>>>>>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong.  Complex proofs are often
>>>>>> shown to
>>>>>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>>>>>> long before they become part of "informed opinion".  And while some
>>>>>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is
>>>>>> not a
>>>>>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>>>>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that
>>>>>> almost
>>>>>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>>>>>> actually find some is no surprise.  And if all subsets of N /were/
>>>>>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you
>>>>>> call
>>>>>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is working
>>>>> on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
>>>>> because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  He has objected to Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Tarski and no doubt
>>>> others.  But if his knowledge of these topics was anything more than
>>>> superficial, he'd know that it's Cantor he needs to challenge.  In this
>>>> respect other cranks like WM get it right.  They at least know where it
>>>> all starts.  The trouble with Cantor's theorems (for people like PO) is
>>>> they are just simple maths and have no "real world" analogy you can use
>>>> to avoid talking maths.  Turing is the obvious target for people who
>>>> know programming.  It seems to be simply an engineering problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My infinitesimal number system does form a bijection between reals
>>> and immediately adjacent geometric points on a number line.
>>
>> Do you even know what a "bijection" is?
>>
>
> It is a jection that is neither Gay nor Straight.
>
>> The statement of a bijetion between reals and the immediately adjacent
>> geometric points sounds like just word hash.
>>
>
> It is a one-to-one bi-directional mapping.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection

So, can you demonstrate your "bijection"?

>
>> Please provide this "Bijection" that shows how to make the bijection
>> pairing that matches EVERY point in one set to EXACTLY one point in
>> the other.
>>
>
> From any specific point on the number line we can find its immediately
> adjacent geometric points.

No, you can't since real numbers do not have an "adjacent" point by the
density property.

To produce a bijection, you need to provide an ACTUAL mapping of one set
to the other.

>
> (0,1) the right endpoint of this interval is exactly one geometric point
> (infinitesimal unit of measure) less than 1.0.

Which is just word hash since there are not infintesimals in the real
number system.

>
>>>
>>> The interval (0,1] is exactly one geometric point longer than the
>>> interval (0,1) thus making reals countable in some sense.
>>
>> And one point in an uncountable set is not measurable and meaningless.
>>
>
> The only reason that reals have been uncountable is that no one
> previously ever thought of a way to identify the numbers that are
> immediately adjacent to every real number.

Nope. Try again. Please provide a method to map ALL the real numbers to
the Natural Numbers. That means there needs to be a way to take ANY real
number and generate a Unique Natural Numbers, and from any Natural
Number a unique real number.

>
> Everyone one always assumed that there is always a real number between
> every pair of real numbers, thus making them uncountable.

And there is. Betwenn any to real numbers a and b, is the number (a+b)/2
which is between them.

>
> As soon as we can identify the real numbers that are immediately
> adjacent to every real number real numbers become countable.

No, they don't. You are just proving your ignorance. It has been clear
for a LONG time that your brain just can't handle non-finite logic.
>
> The right endpoint of the interval (0,1) has zero real numbers between
> it and the right endpoint of (0,1].
>

Then what is that real number?

>>>
>>>> A while back, there was a movement in the US, driven by fundamentalist
>>>> evangelical Christians, to get uncountable sets off the maths
>>>> curriculum.  For some people, uncountability, incompleteness and
>>>> undecidability are the new "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium".  I
>>>> think quite a few objections to these theorems arise from some sort of
>>>> spiritual take on how the world "must" be constructed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

On 5/24/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/24/22 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/24/22 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:54 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>>>>>>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only
>>>>>>>> voice
>>>>>>>> in favour of the revision.
>>>>>>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>>>>>>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>>>>>>> opinion".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>>>>>>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong.  Complex proofs are often
>>>>>>> shown to
>>>>>>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>>>>>>> long before they become part of "informed opinion".  And while some
>>>>>>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is
>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>>>>>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable,
>>>>>>> so to
>>>>>>> actually find some is no surprise.  And if all subsets of N /were/
>>>>>>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what
>>>>>>> you call
>>>>>>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is
>>>>>> working
>>>>>> on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
>>>>>> because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.  He has objected to Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Tarski and no doubt
>>>>> others.  But if his knowledge of these topics was anything more than
>>>>> superficial, he'd know that it's Cantor he needs to challenge.  In
>>>>> this
>>>>> respect other cranks like WM get it right.  They at least know
>>>>> where it
>>>>> all starts.  The trouble with Cantor's theorems (for people like
>>>>> PO) is
>>>>> they are just simple maths and have no "real world" analogy you can
>>>>> use
>>>>> to avoid talking maths.  Turing is the obvious target for people who
>>>>> know programming.  It seems to be simply an engineering problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My infinitesimal number system does form a bijection between reals
>>>> and immediately adjacent geometric points on a number line.
>>>
>>> Do you even know what a "bijection" is?
>>>
>>
>> It is a jection that is neither Gay nor Straight.
>>
>>> The statement of a bijetion between reals and the immediately
>>> adjacent geometric points sounds like just word hash.
>>>
>>
>> It is a one-to-one bi-directional mapping.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection
>
> So, can you demonstrate your "bijection"?
>
>>
>>> Please provide this "Bijection" that shows how to make the bijection
>>> pairing that matches EVERY point in one set to EXACTLY one point in
>>> the other.
>>>
>>
>>  From any specific point on the number line we can find its
>> immediately adjacent geometric points.
>
> No, you can't since real numbers do not have an "adjacent" point by the
> density property.
>
> To produce a bijection, you need to provide an ACTUAL mapping of one set
> to the other.
>
>>
>> (0,1) the right endpoint of this interval is exactly one geometric
>> point (infinitesimal unit of measure) less than 1.0.
>
> Which is just word hash since there are not infintesimals in the real
> number system.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> The interval (0,1] is exactly one geometric point longer than the
>>>> interval (0,1) thus making reals countable in some sense.
>>>
>>> And one point in an uncountable set is not measurable and meaningless.
>>>
>>
>> The only reason that reals have been uncountable is that no one
>> previously ever thought of a way to identify the numbers that are
>> immediately adjacent to every real number.
>
> Nope. Try again. Please provide a method to map ALL the real numbers to
> the Natural Numbers. That means there needs to be a way to take ANY real
> number and generate a Unique Natural Numbers, and from any Natural
> Number a unique real number.
>
>>
>> Everyone one always assumed that there is always a real number between
>> every pair of real numbers, thus making them uncountable.
>
> And there is. Betwenn any to real numbers a and b, is the number (a+b)/2
> which is between them.
>
>>
>> As soon as we can identify the real numbers that are immediately
>> adjacent to every real number real numbers become countable.
>
> No, they don't. You are just proving your ignorance. It has been clear
> for a LONG time that your brain just can't handle non-finite logic.
>>
>> The right endpoint of the interval (0,1) has zero real numbers between
>> it and the right endpoint of (0,1].
>>
>
> Then what is that real number?

What is the name of the number between the right endpoints of the above
two intervals? The first element of the empty set.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 5/24/22 10:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/24/22 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/22 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/24/2022 9:54 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/24/22 6:58 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed
>>>>>>>>> opinion is
>>>>>>>>> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the
>>>>>>>>> only voice
>>>>>>>>> in favour of the revision.
>>>>>>>> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>>>>>>>> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>>>>>>>> opinion".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical
>>>>>>>> "informed
>>>>>>>> opinion" has been shown to be wrong.  Complex proofs are often
>>>>>>>> shown to
>>>>>>>> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that
>>>>>>>> happens
>>>>>>>> long before they become part of "informed opinion".  And while some
>>>>>>>> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this
>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>>>>>>>> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious
>>>>>>>> that almost
>>>>>>>> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable,
>>>>>>>> so to
>>>>>>>> actually find some is no surprise.  And if all subsets of N /were/
>>>>>>>> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what
>>>>>>>> you call
>>>>>>>> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if you read what he says, this is actually his goal. He is
>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>> on the Halting Problem, not because it interests him directly, but
>>>>>>> because it proves so many things that go against his core beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.  He has objected to Cantor, Gödel, Turing, Tarski and no doubt
>>>>>> others.  But if his knowledge of these topics was anything more than
>>>>>> superficial, he'd know that it's Cantor he needs to challenge.  In
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> respect other cranks like WM get it right.  They at least know
>>>>>> where it
>>>>>> all starts.  The trouble with Cantor's theorems (for people like
>>>>>> PO) is
>>>>>> they are just simple maths and have no "real world" analogy you
>>>>>> can use
>>>>>> to avoid talking maths.  Turing is the obvious target for people who
>>>>>> know programming.  It seems to be simply an engineering problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My infinitesimal number system does form a bijection between reals
>>>>> and immediately adjacent geometric points on a number line.
>>>>
>>>> Do you even know what a "bijection" is?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a jection that is neither Gay nor Straight.
>>>
>>>> The statement of a bijetion between reals and the immediately
>>>> adjacent geometric points sounds like just word hash.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a one-to-one bi-directional mapping.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection
>>
>> So, can you demonstrate your "bijection"?
>>
>>>
>>>> Please provide this "Bijection" that shows how to make the bijection
>>>> pairing that matches EVERY point in one set to EXACTLY one point in
>>>> the other.
>>>>
>>>
>>>  From any specific point on the number line we can find its
>>> immediately adjacent geometric points.
>>
>> No, you can't since real numbers do not have an "adjacent" point by
>> the density property.
>>
>> To produce a bijection, you need to provide an ACTUAL mapping of one
>> set to the other.
>>
>>>
>>> (0,1) the right endpoint of this interval is exactly one geometric
>>> point (infinitesimal unit of measure) less than 1.0.
>>
>> Which is just word hash since there are not infintesimals in the real
>> number system.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The interval (0,1] is exactly one geometric point longer than the
>>>>> interval (0,1) thus making reals countable in some sense.
>>>>
>>>> And one point in an uncountable set is not measurable and meaningless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only reason that reals have been uncountable is that no one
>>> previously ever thought of a way to identify the numbers that are
>>> immediately adjacent to every real number.
>>
>> Nope. Try again. Please provide a method to map ALL the real numbers
>> to the Natural Numbers. That means there needs to be a way to take ANY
>> real number and generate a Unique Natural Numbers, and from any
>> Natural Number a unique real number.
>>
>>>
>>> Everyone one always assumed that there is always a real number
>>> between every pair of real numbers, thus making them uncountable.
>>
>> And there is. Betwenn any to real numbers a and b, is the number
>> (a+b)/2 which is between them.
>>
>>>
>>> As soon as we can identify the real numbers that are immediately
>>> adjacent to every real number real numbers become countable.
>>
>> No, they don't. You are just proving your ignorance. It has been clear
>> for a LONG time that your brain just can't handle non-finite logic.
>>>
>>> The right endpoint of the interval (0,1) has zero real numbers
>>> between it and the right endpoint of (0,1].
>>>
>>
>> Then what is that real number?
>
> What is the name of the number between the right endpoints of the above
> two intervals? The first element of the empty set.
>

Improper question, as there IS no 'right endpoint' for the open
interval. THAT is the whole issue.

With real numbers, open intervals do not have 'an enpoint'.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it is true, that is the nature of
infinite sets.

Even with the Countably Infinite Rationals, there is no "last" point in
an open interval.

On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
[...]
>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true. I'm
>> assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math (etc.) buff
>> and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. This book, as
>> well as many others written by him or others, go through the history
>> of mathematics and show examples where the whole community has bought
>> a load of rope.

Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go overboard about
it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than "history" of maths", and, AIUI,
it's not so much a claim that any particular theorem is "wrong", rather
that as maths develops, its language evolves and becomes refined. Of
course there have been blunders, which may have lain undetected for a
long time, but more important have been the "edge" cases, where what we
mean by [eg] "function" has developed esp as we moved from the intuition
of the 18thC to the rigour of the 19thC, so that theorems need to change
to reflect the new language.

Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module based
entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC. Stuff that is
now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all the rage. Had it not
been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to quote some examples. But it
serves as a reminder that maths is not the "definitive" subject that is
usually presented to students [from primary school to research] --
"Here be maths as it is and always has been ever since its discovery,
and here be the unknown bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains
any number of false starts and debates, many of which never resolve but
just get quietly dropped.

Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as well as
detailing his complicated private/political life says quite a lot about
"Proofs ...".

> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It sounds
> really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to world-class
> library :-(

As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296 copies
for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no longer have access
to any library with a copy [or able to get one for you] -- it doesn't
need to be world-class for that. Apart from that, you surely have some
friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?

[...]
> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so simple
> they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite unprecedented,
> and simply not possible for the vast majority of theorems.

In the present context, that would be more interesting if PO had
pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem. Merely being
counter-intuitive [at first glance] isn't a flaw. Esp when it's so easy
to point to flaws in the counter-intuition.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Hummel

Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:

> On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
> [...]
>>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true. I'm
>>> assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math (etc.) buff
>>> and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. This book, as
>>> well as many others written by him or others, go through the history
>>> of mathematics and show examples where the whole community has bought
>>> a load of rope.
>
> Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go overboard about
> it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than "history" of maths", and, AIUI,
> it's not so much a claim that any particular theorem is "wrong", rather
> that as maths develops, its language evolves and becomes refined. Of
> course there have been blunders, which may have lain undetected for a
> long time, but more important have been the "edge" cases, where what we
> mean by [eg] "function" has developed esp as we moved from the intuition
> of the 18thC to the rigour of the 19thC, so that theorems need to change
> to reflect the new language.

I found the original essays that form the core of the book online, and
though I ave not finished reading, I think what Lakatos is saying is
somewhat tangential to my point. His main focus is on the process of
doing mathematics.

Of course PO thinks (I should say now thinks because his claims shift
over time) that he has "refined" the idea of halting.

> Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module based
> entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC. Stuff that is
> now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all the rage. Had it not
> been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to quote some examples. But it
> serves as a reminder that maths is not the "definitive" subject that is
> usually presented to students [from primary school to research] --
> "Here be maths as it is and always has been ever since its discovery,
> and here be the unknown bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains
> any number of false starts and debates, many of which never resolve but
> just get quietly dropped.

I think that's true of many branches of human investigation, but since
mathematics is the investigation of abstract "inventions", it is even
more prone to going off on tangents that turn out to be fads. Then
again, some fields come back to being centre stage. Number theory, once
little more than an amusement, turned into a valuable area of research.

> Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as well as
> detailing his complicated private/political life says quite a lot about
> "Proofs ...".
>
>> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It sounds
>> really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to world-class
>> library :-(
>
> As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296 copies
> for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no longer have access
> to any library with a copy [or able to get one for you] -- it doesn't
> need to be world-class for that.

I was just lamenting the loss as some places give retired academics
library privileges and some don't! The local council library system is
just about hanging on in most places in the UK so, yes, I can get any
book through the inter-library loan scheme. It's just that waiting
weeks is so last century.

> Apart from that, you surely have some
> friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?

Strictly against the rules, so I would not want to put anyone in that
position!

> [...]
>> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so simple
>> they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite unprecedented,
>> and simply not possible for the vast majority of theorems.
>
> In the present context, that would be more interesting if PO had
> pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem.

For a long time that was exactly his claim, though as you say he never
pointed out what he thought was the flaw.

> Merely being
> counter-intuitive [at first glance] isn't a flaw. Esp when it's so easy
> to point to flaws in the counter-intuition.

--
Ben.

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 16:07:13 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 12:48:24 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 11:58:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> >> >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie 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
>> >> >> > It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
>> >> >> > wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
>> >> >> > in favour of the revision.
>> >> >> It is a very strange use of language to describe an interlocking
>> >> >> collection of well-established mathematical theorems as "informed
>> >> >> opinion".
>> >> >> > However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong,
>> >> >> I can't think of a single instance where such mathematical "informed
>> >> >> opinion" has been shown to be wrong. Complex proofs are often shown to
>> >> >> be flawed (and are sometimes fixed, sometimes not), but that happens
>> >> >> long before they become part of "informed opinion". And while some
>> >> >> striking theorems take a while to be properly understood, this is not a
>> >> >> striking result, nor are any of the proofs complex.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The result in question is not striking because it is obvious that almost
>> >> >> all (in the technical sense) subsets of N are not TM-decidable, so to
>> >> >> actually find some is no surprise. And if all subsets of N /were/
>> >> >> TM-decidable (as PO also claims) then other vast areas of what you call
>> >> >> "informed opinion" come crashing down.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And we are not talking about a situation like the discovery of
>> >> >> non-Euclidean geometry or complex numbers here. PO is not suggesting a
>> >> >> different collection of premises, but is claiming that a proof (in fact
>> >> >> all proofs even those he's never read) are flawed.
>> >> >> > it
>> >> >> > can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
>> >> >> > from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
>> >> >> > within the system.
>> >> >> Again, it's odd that you say "generally". I know of no case at all, not
>> >> >> one, in which a well-established collection of mathematical results is
>> >> >> "corrected" by anyone. There's no experience to generalise from, and
>> >> >> generalising from other disciplines, with very different notions of
>> >> >> truth, is hard to justify.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I'm a biologist by training, not a mathematician. But in biology, there is
>> >> > something called "Hamilton's rule" which is that an organism will make
>> >> > a resource transfer to a relative if the benefit to the relative is greater
>> >> > than the loss to the donor, divided by the co-efficient of relatedness.
>> >> > It's misleading because it doesn't consider the possibility of reciprocal
>> >> > transfers. That's an example of something which seemed to be purely
>> >> > mathematical in nature, and was generally accepted, but isn't in fact
>> >> > right.
>> >> I don't see how that's "purely mathematical". It's expressed in terms
>> >> of a formula, but there is nothing to prove, mathematically. The
>> >> formula may or may not accurately model the world, but that's
>> >> experimental biology. Sure, you can derive that sort of formula by
>> >> making assumptions about the world, and those derivation will look a but
>> >> like proofs, but the result is not a mathematical theorem.
>> >>
>> > You prove that an organism that makes the resource transfer will be
>> > more successful in getting its genes into the next generation than
>> > an organism that doesn't. It's not based on experimental results,
>> > other than calculating the coefficient of relatedness itself, which
>> > is ultimately based on observation.
>> Odd to do biology that need not match experimental results but if there
>> is, as you say, a proof from some assumptions, then it's true in all
>> models that comport with those assumptions even if no such models have
>> any relationship with the real world. Has the "proof" been invalidated?
>> If not, then what you call the "informed opinion" on the topic should
>> remain uncorrected. And, in my opinion, all well-informed biologists
>> should ignore the result since it's purely mathematical.
>>
>> That was an odd paragraph to write because I am trying to take you at
>> your word. It's not been my experience that any scientific models, in
>> any discipline, are purely mathematical. That would seem to me to be
>> pointless. What I wanted to write was "I think you are misrepresenting
>> biology" but I'll defer to your experience.
>>
> You have to have some assumptions, such as that genes are real, that
> they are transmitted to the next generation. You also need some slightly
> more subtle assumptions, such as that the genes have perfect control
> of behaviour, and that organisms have perfect relevant information, and
> that the system has reached stability.
> But evolution will dictate that a resource transfer will take place, when
> the genetic benefit exceeds the genetic cost. That's independent of any
> observations. You don't observe a resource transfer, measure the cost,
> measure the benefit to the recipient, and derive the rule that way.

I don't why you call this "purely mathematical". In fact, I see no
maths at all so far, just the usual starting points for attempting to
build a mathematical model of a physical system.

> You do however observe a resource transfer. The classic example is the
> social insects. It's also the case that many social insects are more closely
> related to their sisters than to their children, because of a quirk in their
> genetics. So it's not as if the model is devoid of any connection to observed
> reality. But it's ultimately a claim about mathematics, not about animals.
> It has to be true if our sums are correct.

Why do biologists waste their time on claims about mathematics and not
animals? Mind you, I've seen no evidence of a mathematical claim yet,
so I am still sceptical about the whole basis of the discussion. Can
you link to where I can best read about this purely mathematical... not
sure what to call it... theorem?

--
Ben.

On 5/25/2022 5:37 AM, Ben wrote:
> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true. I'm
>>>> assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math (etc.) buff
>>>> and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. This book, as
>>>> well as many others written by him or others, go through the history
>>>> of mathematics and show examples where the whole community has bought
>>>> a load of rope.
>>
>> Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go overboard about
>> it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than "history" of maths", and, AIUI,
>> it's not so much a claim that any particular theorem is "wrong", rather
>> that as maths develops, its language evolves and becomes refined. Of
>> course there have been blunders, which may have lain undetected for a
>> long time, but more important have been the "edge" cases, where what we
>> mean by [eg] "function" has developed esp as we moved from the intuition
>> of the 18thC to the rigour of the 19thC, so that theorems need to change
>> to reflect the new language.
>
> I found the original essays that form the core of the book online, and
> though I ave not finished reading, I think what Lakatos is saying is
> somewhat tangential to my point. His main focus is on the process of
> doing mathematics.
>
> Of course PO thinks (I should say now thinks because his claims shift
> over time) that he has "refined" the idea of halting.
>
>> Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module based
>> entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC. Stuff that is
>> now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all the rage. Had it not
>> been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to quote some examples. But it
>> serves as a reminder that maths is not the "definitive" subject that is
>> usually presented to students [from primary school to research] --
>> "Here be maths as it is and always has been ever since its discovery,
>> and here be the unknown bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains
>> any number of false starts and debates, many of which never resolve but
>> just get quietly dropped.
>
> I think that's true of many branches of human investigation, but since
> mathematics is the investigation of abstract "inventions", it is even
> more prone to going off on tangents that turn out to be fads. Then
> again, some fields come back to being centre stage. Number theory, once
> little more than an amusement, turned into a valuable area of research.
>
>> Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as well as
>> detailing his complicated private/political life says quite a lot about
>> "Proofs ...".
>>
>>> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It sounds
>>> really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to world-class
>>> library :-(
>>
>> As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296 copies
>> for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no longer have access
>> to any library with a copy [or able to get one for you] -- it doesn't
>> need to be world-class for that.
>
> I was just lamenting the loss as some places give retired academics
> library privileges and some don't! The local council library system is
> just about hanging on in most places in the UK so, yes, I can get any
> book through the inter-library loan scheme. It's just that waiting
> weeks is so last century.

We retired to a place where we knew nobody but had a university with a
CS department. I made an appointment with the chair and had lunch one
day. I did not want to teach but wanted some connection with the
department. I was granted a status called "visiting colleague" that gave
me library and campus store privileges as well as put me on various
lists such as the seminar and department talks invitees' list. Now a I
days can attend them via ZOOM.

As far as I know, most universities in the US have similar arrangements
though the name of the "positions" vary. I just assumed that you would
have similar access or there would be a position such as "Emeritus" with
your prior employer or even other institutions.

>> Apart from that, you surely have some
>> friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?
>
> Strictly against the rules, so I would not want to put anyone in that
> position!
>
>> [...]
>>> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so simple
>>> they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite unprecedented,
>>> and simply not possible for the vast majority of theorems.
>>
>> In the present context, that would be more interesting if PO had
>> pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem.
>
> For a long time that was exactly his claim, though as you say he never
> pointed out what he thought was the flaw.
>
>> Merely being
>> counter-intuitive [at first glance] isn't a flaw. Esp when it's so easy
>> to point to flaws in the counter-intuition.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 5/25/2022 6:37 AM, Ben wrote:
> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true. I'm
>>>> assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math (etc.) buff
>>>> and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. This book, as
>>>> well as many others written by him or others, go through the history
>>>> of mathematics and show examples where the whole community has bought
>>>> a load of rope.
>>
>> Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go overboard about
>> it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than "history" of maths", and, AIUI,
>> it's not so much a claim that any particular theorem is "wrong", rather
>> that as maths develops, its language evolves and becomes refined. Of
>> course there have been blunders, which may have lain undetected for a
>> long time, but more important have been the "edge" cases, where what we
>> mean by [eg] "function" has developed esp as we moved from the intuition
>> of the 18thC to the rigour of the 19thC, so that theorems need to change
>> to reflect the new language.
>
> I found the original essays that form the core of the book online, and
> though I ave not finished reading, I think what Lakatos is saying is
> somewhat tangential to my point. His main focus is on the process of
> doing mathematics.
>
> Of course PO thinks (I should say now thinks because his claims shift
> over time) that he has "refined" the idea of halting.
>
>> Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module based
>> entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC. Stuff that is
>> now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all the rage. Had it not
>> been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to quote some examples. But it
>> serves as a reminder that maths is not the "definitive" subject that is
>> usually presented to students [from primary school to research] --
>> "Here be maths as it is and always has been ever since its discovery,
>> and here be the unknown bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains
>> any number of false starts and debates, many of which never resolve but
>> just get quietly dropped.
>
> I think that's true of many branches of human investigation, but since
> mathematics is the investigation of abstract "inventions", it is even
> more prone to going off on tangents that turn out to be fads. Then
> again, some fields come back to being centre stage. Number theory, once
> little more than an amusement, turned into a valuable area of research.
>
>> Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as well as
>> detailing his complicated private/political life says quite a lot about
>> "Proofs ...".
>>
>>> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It sounds
>>> really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to world-class
>>> library :-(
>>
>> As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296 copies
>> for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no longer have access
>> to any library with a copy [or able to get one for you] -- it doesn't
>> need to be world-class for that.
>
> I was just lamenting the loss as some places give retired academics
> library privileges and some don't! The local council library system is
> just about hanging on in most places in the UK so, yes, I can get any
> book through the inter-library loan scheme. It's just that waiting
> weeks is so last century.
>
>> Apart from that, you surely have some
>> friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?
>
> Strictly against the rules, so I would not want to put anyone in that
> position!
>
>> [...]
>>> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so simple
>>> they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite unprecedented,
>>> and simply not possible for the vast majority of theorems.
>>
>> In the present context, that would be more interesting if PO had
>> pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem.
>
> For a long time that was exactly his claim, though as you say he never
> pointed out what he thought was the flaw.
>

The flaw is that no one ever bothered to think through the effects of a
simulating halt decider.

Instead of ever beginning this analysis simulation is simply rejected
out-of-hand on the basis that some simulations would never end.

A simulating halt decider recognizes the infinitely nested simulation
behavior pattern of the conventional HP counter examples, thus aborted
its simulation before ever reaching the "impossible" part of the
"impossible" input.

Since I have said this many hundreds of times you are quite dishonest to
say that I never said this before.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:35:44 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/25/2022 6:37 AM, Ben wrote:
> > Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
> >>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
> >> [...]
> >>>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true.
> >>>> I'm assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math
> >>>> (etc.) buff and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre
> >>>> Lakatos. This book, as well as many others written by him or
> >>>> others, go through the history of mathematics and show examples
> >>>> where the whole community has bought a load of rope.
> >>
> >> Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go overboard
> >> about it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than "history" of
> >> maths", and, AIUI, it's not so much a claim that any particular
> >> theorem is "wrong", rather that as maths develops, its language
> >> evolves and becomes refined. Of course there have been blunders,
> >> which may have lain undetected for a long time, but more important
> >> have been the "edge" cases, where what we mean by [eg] "function"
> >> has developed esp as we moved from the intuition of the 18thC to
> >> the rigour of the 19thC, so that theorems need to change to
> >> reflect the new language.
> >
> > I found the original essays that form the core of the book online,
> > and though I ave not finished reading, I think what Lakatos is
> > saying is somewhat tangential to my point. His main focus is on
> > the process of doing mathematics.
> >
> > Of course PO thinks (I should say now thinks because his claims
> > shift over time) that he has "refined" the idea of halting.
> >
> >> Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module
> >> based entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC.
> >> Stuff that is now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all
> >> the rage. Had it not been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to
> >> quote some examples. But it serves as a reminder that maths is
> >> not the "definitive" subject that is usually presented to students
> >> [from primary school to research] -- "Here be maths as it is and
> >> always has been ever since its discovery, and here be the unknown
> >> bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains any number of
> >> false starts and debates, many of which never resolve but just get
> >> quietly dropped.
> >
> > I think that's true of many branches of human investigation, but
> > since mathematics is the investigation of abstract "inventions", it
> > is even more prone to going off on tangents that turn out to be
> > fads. Then again, some fields come back to being centre stage.
> > Number theory, once little more than an amusement, turned into a
> > valuable area of research.
> >> Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as
> >> well as detailing his complicated private/political life says
> >> quite a lot about "Proofs ...".
> >>
> >>> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It
> >>> sounds really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to
> >>> world-class library :-(
> >>
> >> As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296
> >> copies for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no longer
> >> have access to any library with a copy [or able to get one for
> >> you] -- it doesn't need to be world-class for that.
> >
> > I was just lamenting the loss as some places give retired academics
> > library privileges and some don't! The local council library
> > system is just about hanging on in most places in the UK so, yes, I
> > can get any book through the inter-library loan scheme. It's just
> > that waiting weeks is so last century.
> >
> >> Apart from that, you surely have some
> >> friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?
> >
> > Strictly against the rules, so I would not want to put anyone in
> > that position!
> >
> >> [...]
> >>> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so
> >>> simple they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite
> >>> unprecedented, and simply not possible for the vast majority of
> >>> theorems.
> >>
> >> In the present context, that would be more interesting if
> >> PO had pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem.
> >
> > For a long time that was exactly his claim, though as you say he
> > never pointed out what he thought was the flaw.
> >
>
> The flaw is that no one ever bothered to think through the effects of
> a simulating halt decider.
>
> Instead of ever beginning this analysis simulation is simply rejected
> out-of-hand on the basis that some simulations would never end.
>
> A simulating halt decider recognizes the infinitely nested simulation
> behavior pattern of the conventional HP counter examples, thus
> aborted its simulation before ever reaching the "impossible" part of
> the "impossible" input.

Those proofs DO NOT CONTAIN INFINITE RECURSION or an INFINITELY NESTED
SIMULATION. You are MAKING THIS UP AND IT IS ERRONEOUS.

>
> Since I have said this many hundreds of times you are quite dishonest
> to say that I never said this before.
You said it many hundreds of times and have been WRONG many hundreds of
times.

/Flibble

On 5/25/2022 12:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:35:44 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/2022 6:37 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true.
>>>>>> I'm assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math
>>>>>> (etc.) buff and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre
>>>>>> Lakatos. This book, as well as many others written by him or
>>>>>> others, go through the history of mathematics and show examples
>>>>>> where the whole community has bought a load of rope.
>>>>
>>>> Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go overboard
>>>> about it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than "history" of
>>>> maths", and, AIUI, it's not so much a claim that any particular
>>>> theorem is "wrong", rather that as maths develops, its language
>>>> evolves and becomes refined. Of course there have been blunders,
>>>> which may have lain undetected for a long time, but more important
>>>> have been the "edge" cases, where what we mean by [eg] "function"
>>>> has developed esp as we moved from the intuition of the 18thC to
>>>> the rigour of the 19thC, so that theorems need to change to
>>>> reflect the new language.
>>>
>>> I found the original essays that form the core of the book online,
>>> and though I ave not finished reading, I think what Lakatos is
>>> saying is somewhat tangential to my point. His main focus is on
>>> the process of doing mathematics.
>>>
>>> Of course PO thinks (I should say now thinks because his claims
>>> shift over time) that he has "refined" the idea of halting.
>>>
>>>> Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module
>>>> based entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC.
>>>> Stuff that is now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all
>>>> the rage. Had it not been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to
>>>> quote some examples. But it serves as a reminder that maths is
>>>> not the "definitive" subject that is usually presented to students
>>>> [from primary school to research] -- "Here be maths as it is and
>>>> always has been ever since its discovery, and here be the unknown
>>>> bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains any number of
>>>> false starts and debates, many of which never resolve but just get
>>>> quietly dropped.
>>>
>>> I think that's true of many branches of human investigation, but
>>> since mathematics is the investigation of abstract "inventions", it
>>> is even more prone to going off on tangents that turn out to be
>>> fads. Then again, some fields come back to being centre stage.
>>> Number theory, once little more than an amusement, turned into a
>>> valuable area of research.
>>>> Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as
>>>> well as detailing his complicated private/political life says
>>>> quite a lot about "Proofs ...".
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It
>>>>> sounds really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to
>>>>> world-class library :-(
>>>>
>>>> As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296
>>>> copies for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no longer
>>>> have access to any library with a copy [or able to get one for
>>>> you] -- it doesn't need to be world-class for that.
>>>
>>> I was just lamenting the loss as some places give retired academics
>>> library privileges and some don't! The local council library
>>> system is just about hanging on in most places in the UK so, yes, I
>>> can get any book through the inter-library loan scheme. It's just
>>> that waiting weeks is so last century.
>>>
>>>> Apart from that, you surely have some
>>>> friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?
>>>
>>> Strictly against the rules, so I would not want to put anyone in
>>> that position!
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so
>>>>> simple they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite
>>>>> unprecedented, and simply not possible for the vast majority of
>>>>> theorems.
>>>>
>>>> In the present context, that would be more interesting if
>>>> PO had pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem.
>>>
>>> For a long time that was exactly his claim, though as you say he
>>> never pointed out what he thought was the flaw.
>>>
>>
>> The flaw is that no one ever bothered to think through the effects of
>> a simulating halt decider.
>>
>> Instead of ever beginning this analysis simulation is simply rejected
>> out-of-hand on the basis that some simulations would never end.
>>
>> A simulating halt decider recognizes the infinitely nested simulation
>> behavior pattern of the conventional HP counter examples, thus
>> aborted its simulation before ever reaching the "impossible" part of
>> the "impossible" input.
>
> Those proofs DO NOT CONTAIN INFINITE RECURSION or an INFINITELY NESTED
> SIMULATION. You are MAKING THIS UP AND IT IS ERRONEOUS.
>

When we assume that the halt decider bases its halt status decision on
the behavior of its correctly simulated input then the infinitely nested
simulation <is> in all of the conventional proofs.

Since no one ever thought of the idea of a simulating halt decider
before none of the textbooks refer to this.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:48:09 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/25/2022 12:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:35:44 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/25/2022 6:37 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true.
> >>>>>> I'm assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math
> >>>>>> (etc.) buff and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre
> >>>>>> Lakatos. This book, as well as many others written by him or
> >>>>>> others, go through the history of mathematics and show examples
> >>>>>> where the whole community has bought a load of rope.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go
> >>>> overboard about it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than
> >>>> "history" of maths", and, AIUI, it's not so much a claim that
> >>>> any particular theorem is "wrong", rather that as maths
> >>>> develops, its language evolves and becomes refined. Of course
> >>>> there have been blunders, which may have lain undetected for a
> >>>> long time, but more important have been the "edge" cases, where
> >>>> what we mean by [eg] "function" has developed esp as we moved
> >>>> from the intuition of the 18thC to the rigour of the 19thC, so
> >>>> that theorems need to change to reflect the new language.
> >>>
> >>> I found the original essays that form the core of the book online,
> >>> and though I ave not finished reading, I think what Lakatos is
> >>> saying is somewhat tangential to my point. His main focus is on
> >>> the process of doing mathematics.
> >>>
> >>> Of course PO thinks (I should say now thinks because his claims
> >>> shift over time) that he has "refined" the idea of halting.
> >>>
> >>>> Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module
> >>>> based entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC.
> >>>> Stuff that is now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all
> >>>> the rage. Had it not been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to
> >>>> quote some examples. But it serves as a reminder that maths is
> >>>> not the "definitive" subject that is usually presented to
> >>>> students [from primary school to research] -- "Here be maths as
> >>>> it is and always has been ever since its discovery, and here be
> >>>> the unknown bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains any
> >>>> number of false starts and debates, many of which never resolve
> >>>> but just get quietly dropped.
> >>>
> >>> I think that's true of many branches of human investigation, but
> >>> since mathematics is the investigation of abstract "inventions",
> >>> it is even more prone to going off on tangents that turn out to be
> >>> fads. Then again, some fields come back to being centre stage.
> >>> Number theory, once little more than an amusement, turned into a
> >>> valuable area of research.
> >>>> Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as
> >>>> well as detailing his complicated private/political life says
> >>>> quite a lot about "Proofs ...".
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It
> >>>>> sounds really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to
> >>>>> world-class library :-(
> >>>>
> >>>> As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296
> >>>> copies for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no
> >>>> longer have access to any library with a copy [or able to get
> >>>> one for you] -- it doesn't need to be world-class for that.
> >>>
> >>> I was just lamenting the loss as some places give retired
> >>> academics library privileges and some don't! The local council
> >>> library system is just about hanging on in most places in the UK
> >>> so, yes, I can get any book through the inter-library loan
> >>> scheme. It's just that waiting weeks is so last century.
> >>>
> >>>> Apart from that, you surely have some
> >>>> friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?
> >>>
> >>> Strictly against the rules, so I would not want to put anyone in
> >>> that position!
> >>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so
> >>>>> simple they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite
> >>>>> unprecedented, and simply not possible for the vast majority of
> >>>>> theorems.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the present context, that would be more interesting if
> >>>> PO had pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem.
> >>>
> >>> For a long time that was exactly his claim, though as you say he
> >>> never pointed out what he thought was the flaw.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The flaw is that no one ever bothered to think through the effects
> >> of a simulating halt decider.
> >>
> >> Instead of ever beginning this analysis simulation is simply
> >> rejected out-of-hand on the basis that some simulations would
> >> never end.
> >>
> >> A simulating halt decider recognizes the infinitely nested
> >> simulation behavior pattern of the conventional HP counter
> >> examples, thus aborted its simulation before ever reaching the
> >> "impossible" part of the "impossible" input.
> >
> > Those proofs DO NOT CONTAIN INFINITE RECURSION or an INFINITELY
> > NESTED SIMULATION. You are MAKING THIS UP AND IT IS ERRONEOUS.
> >
>
> When we assume that the halt decider bases its halt status decision
> on the behavior of its correctly simulated input then the infinitely
> nested simulation <is> in all of the conventional proofs.

No. The proofs DO NOT EXECUTE P RECURSIVELY, they ANALYSE P and its
input. This is your basic error that for some reason you cannot get
your head around (or you choose not to).

> Since no one ever thought of the idea of a simulating halt decider
> before none of the textbooks refer to this.

Another bogus assertion.

/Flibble

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:48:17 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2022 12:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:35:44 -0500
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/25/2022 6:37 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>> Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 24/05/2022 23:59, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> I think, that upon reflection, you will recall that isn't true.
> >>>>>> I'm assuming that you are at least a moderate history of math
> >>>>>> (etc.) buff and have read "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre
> >>>>>> Lakatos. This book, as well as many others written by him or
> >>>>>> others, go through the history of mathematics and show examples
> >>>>>> where the whole community has bought a load of rope.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lakatos's work is interesting, but I wouldn't go overboard
> >>>> about it. It's "philosophy of maths" more than "history" of
> >>>> maths", and, AIUI, it's not so much a claim that any particular
> >>>> theorem is "wrong", rather that as maths develops, its language
> >>>> evolves and becomes refined. Of course there have been blunders,
> >>>> which may have lain undetected for a long time, but more important
> >>>> have been the "edge" cases, where what we mean by [eg] "function"
> >>>> has developed esp as we moved from the intuition of the 18thC to
> >>>> the rigour of the 19thC, so that theorems need to change to
> >>>> reflect the new language.
> >>>
> >>> I found the original essays that form the core of the book online,
> >>> and though I ave not finished reading, I think what Lakatos is
> >>> saying is somewhat tangential to my point. His main focus is on
> >>> the process of doing mathematics.
> >>>
> >>> Of course PO thinks (I should say now thinks because his claims
> >>> shift over time) that he has "refined" the idea of halting.
> >>>
> >>>> Re history -- I recall that Warwick ran a history module
> >>>> based entirely around the dead ends of geometry in the 19thC.
> >>>> Stuff that is now utterly forgotten but for a few years was all
> >>>> the rage. Had it not been so utterly forgotten, I'd be able to
> >>>> quote some examples. But it serves as a reminder that maths is
> >>>> not the "definitive" subject that is usually presented to students
> >>>> [from primary school to research] -- "Here be maths as it is and
> >>>> always has been ever since its discovery, and here be the unknown
> >>>> bits where research is ongoing" -- but contains any number of
> >>>> false starts and debates, many of which never resolve but just get
> >>>> quietly dropped.
> >>>
> >>> I think that's true of many branches of human investigation, but
> >>> since mathematics is the investigation of abstract "inventions", it
> >>> is even more prone to going off on tangents that turn out to be
> >>> fads. Then again, some fields come back to being centre stage.
> >>> Number theory, once little more than an amusement, turned into a
> >>> valuable area of research.
> >>>> Re Lakatos -- his Wiki biography is interesting, and as
> >>>> well as detailing his complicated private/political life says
> >>>> quite a lot about "Proofs ...".
> >>>>
> >>>>> I don't know that book. I'll see if I can get hold of it. It
> >>>>> sounds really interesting but, sadly, I no longer have access to
> >>>>> world-class library :-(
> >>>>
> >>>> As Jeff says, copies are available. Bookfinder lists 296
> >>>> copies for sale. But I find it hard to believe that you no longer
> >>>> have access to any library with a copy [or able to get one for
> >>>> you] -- it doesn't need to be world-class for that.
> >>>
> >>> I was just lamenting the loss as some places give retired academics
> >>> library privileges and some don't! The local council library
> >>> system is just about hanging on in most places in the UK so, yes, I
> >>> can get any book through the inter-library loan scheme. It's just
> >>> that waiting weeks is so last century.
> >>>
> >>>> Apart from that, you surely have some
> >>>> friends/acquaintances with access to a university library?
> >>>
> >>> Strictly against the rules, so I would not want to put anyone in
> >>> that position!
> >>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> And of course the halting theorem and Cantor's theorem are so
> >>>>> simple they have been proved at a level of rigour that is quite
> >>>>> unprecedented, and simply not possible for the vast majority of
> >>>>> theorems.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the present context, that would be more interesting if
> >>>> PO had pointed to some flaw, or potential flaw, in the theorem.
> >>>
> >>> For a long time that was exactly his claim, though as you say he
> >>> never pointed out what he thought was the flaw.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The flaw is that no one ever bothered to think through the effects of
> >> a simulating halt decider.
> >>
> >> Instead of ever beginning this analysis simulation is simply rejected
> >> out-of-hand on the basis that some simulations would never end.
> >>
> >> A simulating halt decider recognizes the infinitely nested simulation
> >> behavior pattern of the conventional HP counter examples, thus
> >> aborted its simulation before ever reaching the "impossible" part of
> >> the "impossible" input.
> >
> > Those proofs DO NOT CONTAIN INFINITE RECURSION or an INFINITELY NESTED
> > SIMULATION. You are MAKING THIS UP AND IT IS ERRONEOUS.
> >
> When we assume that the halt decider bases its halt status decision on
> the behavior of its correctly simulated input

By definition, the correctly simulated input is simulated by a UTM. So if the fixed algorithm of H gives the result H(P,P)==0, UTM(P,P) halts, which means H(P,P)==0 is by definition incorrect.