On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> I am explaining how a simulating halt decider recognizes that its input
> specifies infinitely nested simulation step by step.

The entire point of the Halting problem is that the decider you are speaking of cannot even exist.

You can't define/implement it in a programming language.
Because you can't define it - you can't compile it.
Because you can't compile it - you can't run it.

It seems you have overcome three impossibilities.

On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
> infinite recursion between two functions.

The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.

Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem

On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>
> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>
> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same thing.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>
>

That sounds like a perfectly stupid thing to say.

--
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 7/22/2022 3:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>>
>> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>>
>> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same
>> thing.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>>
>>
>
> That sounds like a perfectly stupid thing to say.
>

Rice's theorem depends on the halting problem.

--
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 Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:58:43 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> That sounds like a perfectly stupid thing to say.

Then you should have absolutely no problem producing the source code for the function

int stupid(char[] input)

Such that when you pass it English sentences it determines whether they are stupid or not.

On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:03:44 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Rice's theorem depends on the halting problem.
Great! Prove it.

Write a halting decider for the "stupidity" of a program.

On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>
> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>
> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same thing.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>

If Turing machines cannot not see what humans see then Turing machines
may be an incorrect model of computation.

--
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 Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:13:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> If Turing machines cannot not see what humans see then Turing machines
> may be an incorrect model of computation.

A Turing machine can read exactly the same English sentences you are reading.

A Turing machine cannot decide whether the words written in English are "stupid".

On 7/22/2022 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>>
>> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>>
>> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same
>> thing.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>>
>
> If Turing machines cannot not see what humans see then Turing machines
> may be an incorrect model of computation.
>
>

Please stop cutting out the immediate context, leave at least the last
four messages.

If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.

*Includes link to the entire halt deciding system including a link to*
*the compiler that compiles it: Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2017*

*Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering

--
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 Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.

This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation that follows a well-defined model.

"follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".

Turing machines follow rules.
Humans make rules.

On 7/22/22 4:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 2:34 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 21:26:38 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> That is the simplistic example, no simulation.
>> So why are you calling it a "simulating decider" when it's obvious
>> from your source code that H doesn't simulate P.
>>
>
> I am explaining how a simulating halt decider recognizes that its input
> specifies infinitely nested simulation step by step.
>
> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
> infinite recursion between two functions.

And the problem is that your H presumes a behavior for what hapens when
P calls H that is not the actual behavior orf when P calls H so it gets
the wrong answer.

H presumes that when P calls H then H will simulate P which will call H
which will simulate P ... to infinity

But ACTUALLY, because of the (incorrect) detection logic in H what
actually happens is that P will call H which will simulate P which will
call H at which point the first H will abort its simulation and return
to the P that called it.

Since this isn't what H assumed would happen, it deduces the wrong
behavior for H.

Yes, you COULD have alternatively defined H to behave that way, but you
didn't, H needs to analyse the code that it was given. including the
behavior of the H that is actually present, not some idealized code that
isn't what you actually programmed.

>
> Then I enhance the English (and not the C) to explain how the infinite
> recursion criteria for humans is adapted so that H can recognize the
> infinitely recursive simulation of its input.

And what Humans recognize is that if H DOESN'T abort, that P will get
into an infinite simulation loop, but since that is NOT the H that you
actually have, that logic is invalid.

It isn't would P Halt if H doesn't abort it, but does P Halt with the H
that it is calling, which by your claim and by your code DOES abort it
and return 0 and thus P halts.

You could ask would a COMPLETE simulation of the input to H Halt, and it
does, it just is a fact that H doesn't do a complete simulation because
it was programmed with a rule to stop at a given point (incorrectly) and
thus gives the wrong answer.

>
> When I show this in C it requires 5 pages of code. (pages 6-10)
>
> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering ?*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>
>
>
> https://www.liarparadox.org/2022_07_22.zip
> *This is the complete system that compiles under*
>
> Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2017
> https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/older-downloads/
>
> It has not been recently compiled under UBUNTU
>

On 7/22/22 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>>>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>>>
>>> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>>>
>>> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>>>
>>
>> If Turing machines cannot not see what humans see then Turing machines
>> may be an incorrect model of computation.
>>
>>
>
> Please stop cutting out the immediate context, leave at least the last
> four messages.
>
> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
>
> *Includes link to the entire halt deciding system including a link to*
> *the compiler that compiles it: Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2017*
>
> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>
>

Humans can see that P is infinitely recursive *IF* H just simulates and
doesn't abort its simulation.

H can to, but if H does abort its simulation because it detected this,
then it no longer meets the conditions it "proved" caused the
non-halting condition.

If the Human is smart, it can also see that if the H that P calls
returns the non-halting answer, that P will Halt.

If H was smart enough to see that, it would be stymied, as it would
realize there wasn't an answer it could give to P that would be right.

Smart Humans see this also, and thus know that an H that actually gives
the right answer can't exist.

On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
>
> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation that follows a well-defined model.
>
> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".

I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
computer can calculate, thus a C function that requires static local
memory to pass data between different invocations of itself would be a
Turing computable function. Others have told me otherwise.

--
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 Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
> >> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
> >> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
> >
> > This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation that follows a well-defined model.
> >
> > "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
> computer can calculate

I don't see what this has to do with my point.

Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based on structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.

Asserting that an English sentence, or a program is "stupid" is not a mechanical/rule-based/structured activity. It's entirely qualitative. That is why we can't explain it to a machine.

On 7/22/2022 5:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
>>>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
>>>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
>>>
>>> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation that follows a well-defined model.
>>>
>>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
>> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
>> computer can calculate
>
> I don't see what this has to do with my point.
>
> Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based on structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.
>

Then the fact that my C function does determine that its conventional
pathological input never halts must also apply to Turing machines
without making any difference whether or not H is a pure function.

--
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 Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 01:10:11 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 5:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
> >>>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
> >>>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
> >>>
> >>> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation that follows a well-defined model.
> >>>
> >>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
> >> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
> >> computer can calculate
> >
> > I don't see what this has to do with my point.
> >
> > Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based on structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.
> >
> Then the fact that my C function does determine that its conventional
> pathological input never halts must also apply to Turing machines
> without making any difference whether or not H is a pure function.

Again. What does this have to do with anything?

All determinations of H about P are incorrect.

Because if H determines that P never halts... that's precisely when P halts.
And if H determines that P halts...that's precisely when P doesn't halt.

I can also write a Turing-computable program which determines that 3+7=36.

#include <stdio.h>
int add(int a, int b){
if ( (a ==3) && (b==7)){
return 36;
}
return a+b;
} int main(){
printf("3 + 7 is %d \n", add(3,7));
}

On 7/22/22 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
>>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
>>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
>>
>> This is non-sensical statement.  A computation **IS** any calculation
>> that follows a well-defined model.
>>
>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
>
> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
> computer can calculate, thus a C function that requires static local
> memory to pass data between different invocations of itself would be a
> Turing computable function. Others have told me otherwise.
>

A Turing machine can compute any complete calculation that any computer
can do. That is what a "Calculation" in Computation Theory is.

That is, if you have a function, that for a given input always produces
the same output, then you can compute it with a Turing Machine.

What it sometimes can't do is recreate something like a C function that
depends on external/static values.

Thus, you can't make a Turing Machine that replicates a single call to
strtok that is passed a NULL as the first argument, as that depends on
information retained from a previous call.

A Turing Machine could handle the whole parsing sequence that was the
result of a number of calls to strtok.

In the same way, a Turing Machine couldn't emulate a call to rand, as
that requires saving the "seed" and its evolution over multiple calls.

It could generate a series of random numbers just like what rand would
return.

If the value returned by a function is dependent on whether it is inside
the call of another copy of itself, then it is not a complete
computation, and thus can't be "computable".

The results of an "outermost" call could be a computable function, but
then you get the issue that if it calls something that then calls it
back, that inner call isn't to the same "computation" as before.

This is the problem with your H/P system, if H's simulation of P acts
like a call, and an inner H doesn't act the same as an outer H, then H
doesn't correctly emulate P, since the MACHINE P uses an outermost H, so
if it becomes an inner H it has changed.

ALL copies of H need to act the same, whether inner or outer, and thus
can't use "local" data to change its behavior.

On 7/22/22 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 5:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
>>>>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
>>>>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
>>>>
>>>> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation
>>>> that follows a well-defined model.
>>>>
>>>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
>>> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
>>> computer can calculate
>>
>> I don't see what this has to do with my point.
>>
>> Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based on
>> structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.
>>
>
> Then the fact that my C function does determine that its conventional
> pathological input never halts must also apply to Turing machines
> without making any difference whether or not H is a pure function.
>

Except that your logic is flawed becaue the pathological machihne DOES
Halt if H(P,P) returns 0, thus that fact that you C function determines
that it doesn't means it got the wrong answer, and the "logic" you used
to show it to be correct is flaweed.

The big error is that you "proof" begins with the assumption that H
won't stop until it actually correctly determines that its input will
not halt, but it in fact, does stop without doing that, because the rule
you developed is incorrect and is based on H NEVER aborting its
emulation of its input, and it does abort that emulation.

On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 01:10:11 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Then the fact that my C function does determine that its conventional
> pathological input never halts must also apply to Turing machines
> without making any difference whether or not H is a pure function.

It seems like you suck in (yet another) infinite loop wasting everyone's time again because you don't actually understand the specification of the problem, so I am going to explain it in English, without any computational jargon.

Let's play a game! The game is called "Hey Pete, guess whether I am going to call you an idiot!"

If you say I won't, then I will.
If you say I will, then I won't.

Guess correctly!

On 7/22/2022 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>>>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>>>
>>> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>>>
>>> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>>>
>>
>> If Turing machines cannot not see what humans see then Turing machines
>> may be an incorrect model of computation.
>>
>>
>
> Please stop cutting out the immediate context, leave at least the last
> four messages.
[...]

The last 1000 messages?

On 7/22/2022 6:25 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 01:10:11 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/22/2022 5:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
>>>>>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
>>>>>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation that follows a well-defined model.
>>>>>
>>>>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
>>>> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
>>>> computer can calculate
>>>
>>> I don't see what this has to do with my point.
>>>
>>> Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based on structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.
>>>
>> Then the fact that my C function does determine that its conventional
>> pathological input never halts must also apply to Turing machines
>> without making any difference whether or not H is a pure function.
>
> Again. What does this have to do with anything?
>
> All determinations of H about P are incorrect.
>

If we have a cat we have an animal.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Suborder: Feliformia
Family: Felidae
Subfamily:Felinae
Genus: Felis
Species: F. catus

If a simulating halt decider continues to correctly simulate its input
until it correctly matches a non-halting behavior pattern then this SHD
is necessarily correct when it aborts its simulation and reports
non-halting.

H does do this so it is necessarily correct

> Because if H determines that P never halts... that's precisely when P halts.
> And if H determines that P halts...that's precisely when P doesn't halt.
>

I am only referring to the correctly simulated input that never halts no
matter what. Everyone keeps dishonestly changing the subject to an
entirely different sequence of instructions.

--
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 Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 01:53:36 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 6:25 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 01:10:11 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/22/2022 5:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
> >>>>>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
> >>>>>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any calculation that follows a well-defined model.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
> >>>> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
> >>>> computer can calculate
> >>>
> >>> I don't see what this has to do with my point.
> >>>
> >>> Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based on structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.
> >>>
> >> Then the fact that my C function does determine that its conventional
> >> pathological input never halts must also apply to Turing machines
> >> without making any difference whether or not H is a pure function.
> >
> > Again. What does this have to do with anything?
> >
> > All determinations of H about P are incorrect.
> >
> If we have a cat we have an animal.
>
> Kingdom: Animalia
> Phylum: Chordata
> Class: Mammalia
> Order: Carnivora
> Suborder: Feliformia
> Family: Felidae
> Subfamily:Felinae
> Genus: Felis
> Species: F. catus
>
> If a simulating halt decider continues to correctly simulate its input
> until it correctly matches a non-halting behavior pattern then this SHD
> is necessarily correct when it aborts its simulation and reports
> non-halting.
>
> H does do this so it is necessarily correct
> > Because if H determines that P never halts... that's precisely when P halts.
> > And if H determines that P halts...that's precisely when P doesn't halt.
> >
> I am only referring to the correctly simulated input that never halts no
> matter what. Everyone keeps dishonestly changing the subject to an
> entirely different sequence of instructions.

Pete, stop wasting my time and just play my game "Will I call you an idiot?"

I have given you the rules by which I am playing.

If you guess that I'll call you an idiiot then I won't.
If you guess that I won't call you an idiot then I will.

Go ahead and simulate my brain then make a "correct" guess.

Will I call you an idiot; or not?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:53:26 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 7/22/2022 6:25 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 01:10:11 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/22/2022 5:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt
> >>>>>> decider specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans
> >>>>>> can see this then Turing machines must be not the best model
> >>>>>> of computation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any
> >>>>> calculation that follows a well-defined model.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys
> >>>>> rules".
> >>>> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
> >>>> computer can calculate
> >>>
> >>> I don't see what this has to do with my point.
> >>>
> >>> Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based
> >>> on structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.
> >> Then the fact that my C function does determine that its
> >> conventional pathological input never halts must also apply to
> >> Turing machines without making any difference whether or not H is
> >> a pure function.
> >
> > Again. What does this have to do with anything?
> >
> > All determinations of H about P are incorrect.
> >
>
> If we have a cat we have an animal.
>
> Kingdom: Animalia
> Phylum: Chordata
> Class: Mammalia
> Order: Carnivora
> Suborder: Feliformia
> Family: Felidae
> Subfamily:Felinae
> Genus: Felis
> Species: F. catus
>
> If a simulating halt decider continues to correctly simulate its
> input until it correctly matches a non-halting behavior pattern then
> this SHD is necessarily correct when it aborts its simulation and
> reports non-halting.
>
> H does do this so it is necessarily correct

I have shown that a SHD needn't be recursive in nature *and* return a
correct halting decision for *all* inputs, something your SHD fails to
do.

/Flibble

On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 02:03:23 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> I have shown that a SHD needn't be recursive in nature *and* return a
> correct halting decision for *all* inputs, something your SHD fails to
> do.

We have another player for our little game!

The game is called "Will I call you an idiot?" (if you haven't already heard).

I have given you the rules by which I am playing - the "source code" of my "software".

If you guess that I'll call you an idiot then I won't call you an idiot.
If you guess that I won't call you an idiot then I will call you an idiot.

Go ahead and produce the correct decision!

On 7/22/22 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 6:25 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 01:10:11 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2022 5:45 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 23 July 2022 at 00:36:06 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/22/2022 4:57 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 23:43:57 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
>>>>>>> specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is non-sensical statement. A computation **IS** any
>>>>>> calculation that follows a well-defined model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "follows a well defined model" means the same thing as "obeys rules".
>>>>> I have always believed that a TM can calculate anything that any
>>>>> computer can calculate
>>>>
>>>> I don't see what this has to do with my point.
>>>>
>>>> Calculations are strictly mechanical/quantitative activity based on
>>>> structure/rules. That is why we can it to a machine.
>>>>
>>> Then the fact that my C function does determine that its conventional
>>> pathological input never halts must also apply to Turing machines
>>> without making any difference whether or not H is a pure function.
>>
>> Again. What does this have to do with anything?
>>
>> All determinations of H about P are incorrect.
>>
>
> If we have a cat we have an animal.
>
> Kingdom:  Animalia
> Phylum:   Chordata
> Class:    Mammalia
> Order:    Carnivora
> Suborder: Feliformia
> Family:   Felidae
> Subfamily:Felinae
> Genus:      Felis
> Species:  F. catus
>
> If a simulating halt decider continues to correctly simulate its input
> until it correctly matches a non-halting behavior pattern then this SHD
> is necessarily correct when it aborts its simulation and reports
> non-halting.
>
> H does do this so it is necessarily correct

Except that it DOESN'T do this, as is proven by the fact that H(P,P)
reports non-halting but P(P) Halts.

What you are doing is claiming the light must be out because you can't
see anything but you are in fact keeping your eyes shut.

>
>> Because if H determines that P never halts... that's precisely when P
>> halts.
>> And if H determines that P halts...that's precisely when P doesn't halt.
>>
>
> I am only referring to the correctly simulated input that never halts no
> matter what. Everyone keeps dishonestly changing the subject to an
> entirely different sequence of instructions.
>

Right, and the only machine you have mention with the P that calls H
that actually is a machine that never halts is when H fails to ever
abort its simulation and thus fails to be a decider.

This is EXACTLY the sequence of instructions given to H. The CORRECT AND
COMPLETE simulation of this input (which still calls the H that makes
that decision) is shown to actually Halt, therefore PROVING that H made
an ERROR when it thought it proved the input to be non-halting.

The fact that you use rules without ANY source citation makes this sort
of error easy to do.

H may "correctly" simulate most of the instructions it has simulated,
but falls down at the simulation of the full affects of the call H
instruction, as it uses logic that presumes one behavior of H (that it
won't stop simulating), when H actually has a different behavior (it
does stop and returns 0).