void E(void (*x)())
{ H(x, x);
}

(Ignoring stack overflow) If H correctly simulates E would the simulated
E ever stop running without being aborted?

Because no E would ever stop running unless H aborts its simulation of E
this proves that the aborted E specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations.

Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

--
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 11/11/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> void E(void (*x)())
> {
>   H(x, x);
> }
>
> (Ignoring stack overflow) If H correctly simulates E would the simulated
> E ever stop running without being aborted?
>
> Because no E would ever stop running unless H aborts its simulation of E
> this proves that the aborted E specifies a non-halting sequence of
> configurations.
>
> Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
>

And No H that doesn't abort its simulation of an input that it thinks is
not halting can ever return a 0.

Thus, there is no E that calls a H that is a Halt Decider that doesn't Halt.

All you statement proves is that your H that returned 0 didn't actually
correctly decide on the input it was given, but a different one, because
it wasn't looking at all the code it needed to.

You don't seem to understand that you need to look at the input you were
actually given, to make the decision. You just seem to think that things
that aren't what actually are define what things are.

This is the proof of your ignorace.

It is a simple fact that you are not working on the Halting Problem
because you are actually using the requirements of the halting problem,
but you are just too stupid to know the differenc.

Sorry, you have wasted 18 years and destroyed your reputation because
you are made yourself too ignorant of the material and are too stupid to
understand the issue.

It doesn't matter that no H can correctly simulate this template to a
final state. That is just the error in your own mind.

THe question is what any specific instance does. Either E(E) will halt
because that H(E,E) for that E (incorrctly) aborts its simulation of
that E, and return 0, or we have a DIFFERENT class of H that doesn't
abort its simulation, and for THAT class of H, we do get a E(E) that
doesn't halt, but the H it was basd on doesn't give the answer, so is
still wrong.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 10:57:19 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/11/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> > void E(void (*x)())
> > {
> >   H(x, x);
> > }
> >
> > (Ignoring stack overflow) If H correctly simulates E would the
> > simulated E ever stop running without being aborted?
> >
> > Because no E would ever stop running unless H aborts its simulation
> > of E this proves that the aborted E specifies a non-halting
> > sequence of configurations.
> >
> > Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
> >
>
> And No H that doesn't abort its simulation of an input that it thinks
> is not halting can ever return a 0.
>
> Thus, there is no E that calls a H that is a Halt Decider that
> doesn't Halt.
>
> All you statement proves is that your H that returned 0 didn't
> actually correctly decide on the input it was given, but a different
> one, because it wasn't looking at all the code it needed to.
>
> You don't seem to understand that you need to look at the input you
> were actually given, to make the decision. You just seem to think
> that things that aren't what actually are define what things are.
>
> This is the proof of your ignorace.
>
> It is a simple fact that you are not working on the Halting Problem
> because you are actually using the requirements of the halting
> problem, but you are just too stupid to know the differenc.
>
> Sorry, you have wasted 18 years and destroyed your reputation because
> you are made yourself too ignorant of the material and are too stupid
> to understand the issue.
>
> It doesn't matter that no H can correctly simulate this template to a
> final state. That is just the error in your own mind.
>
> THe question is what any specific instance does. Either E(E) will
> halt because that H(E,E) for that E (incorrctly) aborts its
> simulation of that E, and return 0, or we have a DIFFERENT class of H
> that doesn't abort its simulation, and for THAT class of H, we do get
> a E(E) that doesn't halt, but the H it was basd on doesn't give the
> answer, so is still wrong.

It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.

/Flibble

On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>
> /Flibble
>

I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.

I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even if
not in a direct reply,

Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he will
still see me.

More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.

Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide reasoning
behind the claims, showing the Truth.

His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't actually
know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance. If he tries to
put his explanation into explicit words, his errors become very
apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.

On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>
> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even if
> not in a direct reply,
>
> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he will
> still see me.
>
> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
> enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>
> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide reasoning
> behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>
> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't actually
> know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance. If he tries to
> put his explanation into explicit words, his errors become very
> apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.

You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not in my
target audience.

--
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 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>
>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even if
>> not in a direct reply,
>>
>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he
>> will still see me.
>>
>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
>> enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>
>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide reasoning
>> behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>
>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't actually
>> know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance. If he tries
>> to put his explanation into explicit words, his errors become very
>> apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.
>
> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not in my
> target audience.
>
>

No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.

YOU have the Strawman, unless you are admitting that your "SHD" isn't
actually a Halting Decider.

The fact you can't tell the difference shows your ignorance.

YOU are the Naive one.

Do you reject that the correct answer for a Halt Decider when given the
description of a program and its input is whether that program when run
with that input will halt or not.

After all, that is the DEFINITION of a Halt Decider. (Care to provide an
actual published reference from a reputable source that says otherwise?)

So either you Simulation Halt Deciders answer that question or your
criteria makes that not actually a Halt Decider.

Your refusal to face that reveals who you are.

FAIL.

On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>
>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even
>>> if not in a direct reply,
>>>
>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he
>>> will still see me.
>>>
>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
>>> enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>
>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide reasoning
>>> behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>
>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't actually
>>> know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance. If he tries
>>> to put his explanation into explicit words, his errors become very
>>> apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.
>>
>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not in my
>> target audience.
>>
>>
>
> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>
Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine (UTM)
knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H provides H with a
correct basis for its halt status decision.

--
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 11/11/2022 11:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>
> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even if
> not in a direct reply,
>
> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he will
> still see me.
>
> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
> enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.

How is that working? Do you really think that repeating yourself
literally 1000's of times makes good reading? Almost anyone who can look
deeply enough into the logic will notice you engaging in a supposed
dialogue with a stone wall (actually a stone brain). After your first
half dozen messages a few years ago, you have added nothing to the
conversation. Time to move on.

> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide reasoning
> behind the claims, showing the Truth.

It's a trivial truth and few will be fooled. Further, the real truth
tellers and teachers do not hang out in these groups or archives. Too
many truth tellers too few acolytes shrewd enough to know who has the
inside track on god's word. Did you know that PO, in his less lucid
moments, thinks he's a truth teller too? Truth tellers only pass the
word when they preach to the choir.

> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't actually
> know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance. If he tries to
> put his explanation into explicit words, his errors become very
> apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.

So what? Rather than save the world from a babbling idiot, why not
rescue homeless puppies at risk? You would be doing a better thing and
would be more admired. A mathematical social worker is not needed.

I think, instead, you don't know what to do with your time and have
select this task to fill the gaps. Anyone studying the archives will
notice that PO is the clear victor in all these threads. His head is too
thick to be bothered by facts or sort-of facts; he's too ignorant and
proud to be bothered by anyone else's facts or religion; and some of
your presentations (articles) are not worded in the best way or are
slightly misleading to someone who doesn't already know most of what you
meant to say. (That's a problem with most of us writing articles without
a few hours reflection before posting.) You will not win this way.

Since I think you seek recognition for your efforts as a white knight
and it's not working, I suggest you go black hat! Beat PO at his own
game: Initiate threads five to twenty times a week; Have response chains
where you respond significant numbers of times to your own articles; Be
outrageous!

This will only work if you devote enough time to take all of the PO
USENET distinctions away from him. You must, every month, win the honors
for (1) most threads started, (2) most number of responses to threads
you have started, (3) most posts by an individual, (4) threads with
largest number of indentations, (5) the highest number of almost
repetitious posts - slight variations required, (6) highest percentage
of silly capitalization, and (7) most times breaking USENET rules on
text postings.

When you follow the above seven point program (and you are well on your
way in many of the points) you will eclipse PO and he will go POOF into
a heap of dust. You will have won! At last. and history and the titles
will be yours. You will be known to future USENET generations, for as
long as the archives are maintained, as a winner.

However, and this is an important however, you will have approximately
the same impact on the truth as you do now. Why not have fun instead?
--
Jeff Barnett

On 11/11/2022 1:56 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 11:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>
>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even if
>> not in a direct reply,
>>
>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he
>> will still see me.
>>
>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
>> enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>
> How is that working? Do you really think that repeating yourself
> literally 1000's of times makes good reading? Almost anyone who can look
> deeply enough into the logic will notice you engaging in a supposed
> dialogue with a stone wall (actually a stone brain). After your first
> half dozen messages a few years ago, you have added nothing to the
> conversation. Time to move on.
>
>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide reasoning
>> behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>
> It's a trivial truth and few will be fooled. Further, the real truth
> tellers and teachers do not hang out in these groups or archives. Too
> many truth tellers too few acolytes shrewd enough to know who has the
> inside track on god's word. Did you know that PO, in his less lucid
> moments, thinks he's a truth teller too? Truth tellers only pass the
> word when they preach to the choir.
>
>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't actually
>> know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance. If he tries
>> to put his explanation into explicit words, his errors become very
>> apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.
>
> So what? Rather than save the world from a babbling idiot, why not
> rescue homeless puppies at risk? You would be doing a better thing and
> would be more admired. A mathematical social worker is not needed.
>
> I think, instead, you don't know what to do with your time and have
> select this task to fill the gaps. Anyone studying the archives will
> notice that PO is the clear victor in all these threads. His head is too
> thick to be bothered by facts or sort-of facts; he's too ignorant and
> proud to be bothered by anyone else's facts or religion; and some of
> your presentations (articles) are not worded in the best way or are
> slightly misleading to someone who doesn't already know most of what you
> meant to say. (That's a problem with most of us writing articles without
> a few hours reflection before posting.) You will not win this way.
>
> Since I think you seek recognition for your efforts as a white knight
> and it's not working, I suggest you go black hat! Beat PO at his own
> game: Initiate threads five to twenty times a week; Have response chains
> where you respond significant numbers of times to your own articles; Be
> outrageous!
>
> This will only work if you devote enough time to take all of the PO
> USENET distinctions away from him. You must, every month, win the honors
> for (1) most threads started, (2) most number of responses to threads
> you have started, (3) most posts by an individual, (4) threads with
> largest number of indentations, (5) the highest number of almost
> repetitious posts - slight variations required, (6) highest percentage
> of silly capitalization, and (7) most times breaking USENET rules on
> text postings.
>
> When you follow the above seven point program (and you are well on your
> way in many of the points) you will eclipse PO and he will go POOF into
> a heap of dust. You will have won! At last. and history and the titles
> will be yours. You will be known to future USENET generations, for as
> long as the archives are maintained, as a winner.
>
> However, and this is an important however, you will have approximately
> the same impact on the truth as you do now. Why not have fun instead?

Gullible fools will be quite convinced by your empty rhetoric.

void D(void (*x)())
{ int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

None-the-less
Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine (UTM)
knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H provides H with a
correct basis for its halt status decision.

--
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 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>>
>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even
>>>> if not in a direct reply,
>>>>
>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he
>>>> will still see me.
>>>>
>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
>>>> enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>
>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide reasoning
>>>> behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>
>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance.
>>>> If he tries to put his explanation into explicit words, his errors
>>>> become very apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.
>>>
>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not in my
>>> target audience.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>
> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine (UTM)
> knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H provides H with a
> correct basis for its halt status decision.
>

But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.

It is true that the correct simulation of the input will show the
answer, but that is because the correct simulaiton of the input BY
DEFINITION matches the direct execution of it.

You still haven't shown how H can correct simulate an input and show it
to be non-halting when the direct exectution of that exact input halts.

D(D) will ALWAYS Halt if H(D,D) returns 0, so that can NOT be the
correct answer, and no "correct simulation" of that input can say that
it is non-halting.

You just don't seem to understand what it means to correctly simulate
something,

Note, you STILL haven't pointed out the x86 instruction where the
correct simulation by H of the x86 code of D differs from the direct
exectuion of it, even though you need to claim it does, which shows the
problem with your claims.

The problem is you can't, because the difference in your explaination
occurs where H desn't actually simulate its input but applies its
INCORRCT reasoning about the behavior of H to its simulation.

This just shows your ignorance and stupidity of the field.

On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say, even
>>>>> if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he
>>>>> will still see me.
>>>>>
>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I want
>>>>> enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance.
>>>>> If he tries to put his explanation into explicit words, his errors
>>>>> become very apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.
>>>>
>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not in
>>>> my target audience.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>
>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine (UTM)
>> knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H provides H with
>> a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>
>
> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>

void E(void (*x)())
{ H(x, x);
}

Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite execution
of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can correctly deny
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 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
>>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me, he
>>>>>> will still see me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
>>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his ignorance.
>>>>>> If he tries to put his explanation into explicit words, his errors
>>>>>> become very apparent, I think even to him, so he just refuses.
>>>>>
>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not in
>>>>> my target audience.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>
>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H provides
>>> H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>
>>
>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>
>
> void E(void (*x)())
> {
>   H(x, x);
> }
>
> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite execution
> of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can correctly deny
> this.
>

Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the CORRECT
simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note, such an H
doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based on it doing so
it just WRONG.

You just are too stupid to understand that H does what it does, so if it
aborts, the correct answer to a machine based on it is based on the fact
that it does abort.

Yes, if H doesn't abort its simulation, then this E(E) will be
non-halting, but that H fails to be correct as it never gives an answer.

You are just PROVING your stupidity because you seem to think that it is
possible for H to both of these programs at once.

You are just showing that you don't understand the requirements of the
problem.

H must decide on the input given to it, and that input is, for this
problem, using the H that you are claiming to get the right answer,
which you fail to do, because you just don't understand what truth is.

You are just proving that you don't understand basic terms like CORRECT,
or PROOF.

YOU H IS WRONG, the fact that you think it is right just makes you STUPID>

It is wrong, because you say it is a Halt Decider, but a Halt Decider,
by definition, needs to answer "Halting" if the direct running of its
input (or simulation by an ACTUAL UTM) will reach a final state. In this
case E it DOES, as you have even admitted. Thus H is wrong.

Your instance otherwise just shows you are a LIAR.

My guess is you must live in Oz, as you seem to like to use your
strawmen, where you replace the PROPER definition of a Halt Decider
deciding on the basis of Direct Exectution, or the equivalent by the
actual simulation by a UTM, with your STRAWMAN of the simulation done by
H, which you claim to be correct, but isn't because it doesn't match the
needed behavior.

YOU FAIL.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
> >>>>>>> would have thought given your intelligence you would also
> >>>>>>> understand that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
> >>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
> >>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
> >>>>>> me, he will still see me.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
> >>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
> >>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
> >>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
> >>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
> >>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
> >>>>>> so he just refuses.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
> >>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not
> >>>>> in my target audience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
> >>>>
> >>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
> >>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
> >>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
> >>
> >
> > void E(void (*x)())
> > {
> >   H(x, x);
> > }
> >
> > Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
> > execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
> > correctly deny this.
> >
>
> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note,
> such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based on
> it doing so it just WRONG.

The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference category
error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting wrong is the mapping
of the need to abort the simulation to a halt decision of non-halting;
it needs to instead be mapped to INVALID INPUT.

/Flibble

On 11/11/2022 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would have
>>>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
>>>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me,
>>>>>>> he will still see me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
>>>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him, so
>>>>>>> he just refuses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not in
>>>>>> my target audience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>
>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H provides
>>>> H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>
>>
>> void E(void (*x)())
>> {
>>    H(x, x);
>> }
>>
>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite execution
>> of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can correctly
>> deny this.
>>
>
> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the CORRECT
> simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt.
If no H ever aborts its simulation of E then no E ever stops running
this conclusively proves that H is correct to abort its simulation and
report non-halting.

--
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 11/11/2022 3:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>> would have thought given your intelligence you would also
>>>>>>>>> understand that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
>>>>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
>>>>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not
>>>>>>> in my target audience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>> {
>>>   H(x, x);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>> correctly deny this.
>>>
>>
>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note,
>> such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based on
>> it doing so it just WRONG.
>
> The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference category
> error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting wrong is the mapping
> of the need to abort the simulation to a halt decision of non-halting;
> it needs to instead be mapped to INVALID INPUT.
>
> /Flibble
>

I believed that for a decade.

--
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 11/11/22 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
>>>>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me,
>>>>>>>> he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
>>>>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him, so
>>>>>>>> he just refuses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not
>>>>>>> in my target audience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>> {
>>>    H(x, x);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>> correctly deny this.
>>>
>>
>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the CORRECT
>> simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt.
> If no H ever aborts its simulation of E then no E ever stops running
> this conclusively proves that H is correct to abort its simulation and
> report non-halting.
>

if THE H doesn't abort, it doesn't answer.

if THE H does abor, the E returns, and H just doesn't do a "correct
simulation" that shows that E is non-halting, because it aborted.

You can't look at the behavior of a different H than the one in the problem.

You computer seems to have faulty memory.

FAIL.

On 11/11/22 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>> would have thought given your intelligence you would also
>>>>>>>>> understand that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
>>>>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
>>>>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not
>>>>>>> in my target audience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>> {
>>>   H(x, x);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>> correctly deny this.
>>>
>>
>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note,
>> such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based on
>> it doing so it just WRONG.
>
> The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference category
> error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting wrong is the mapping
> of the need to abort the simulation to a halt decision of non-halting;
> it needs to instead be mapped to INVALID INPUT.
>
> /Flibble
>

Nope, no self reference.

E just has a copy of the H that claim to be deciding it, not a
"reference" to it. Turing Machines do not have the power to directly
express a reference.

H just gets the wrong answer.

The only "self reference" logic that occurs is in trying to do a
NON-COMUTATION to try to deduce the correct answer.

That means there does not exist a design for an H that gives the correct
answer, and any "algorithm" that says for H to just give the right
answer is itself a category error.

The other possible category error is saying that it is the correct
simulation *BY H* that defines the answer, since no H that gives the
answer did a correct/complete simulaiton, thus it is an error to limit
the simulation to only that done by H.

The Correct Simulation of the input WILL give the right answer. If H
returns 0, then the Correct simulation will Halt.

If H doesn't abort, if just fails to give an answer at all, so is wrong.

On 11/11/2022 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I would
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
>>>>>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked me,
>>>>>>>>> he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
>>>>>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him, so
>>>>>>>>> he just refuses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not
>>>>>>>> in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>> {
>>>>    H(x, x);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>>> correctly deny this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt.
>> If no H ever aborts its simulation of E then no E ever stops running
>> this conclusively proves that H is correct to abort its simulation and
>> report non-halting.
>>
>
> if THE H doesn't abort, it doesn't answer.
>

H only need to correctly predict that its input would never reach its
own final state and terminate normally in 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.

> if THE H does abor, the E returns, and H just doesn't do a "correct
> simulation" that shows that E is non-halting, because it aborted.
>
> You can't look at the behavior of a different H than the one in the
> problem.
>
> You computer seems to have faulty memory.
>
> FAIL.

--
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 11/11/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I say,
>>>>>>>>>> even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives, I
>>>>>>>>>> want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are not
>>>>>>>>> in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H(x, x);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>>>> correctly deny this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>>>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt.
>>> If no H ever aborts its simulation of E then no E ever stops running
>>> this conclusively proves that H is correct to abort its simulation
>>> and report non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> if THE H doesn't abort, it doesn't answer.
>>
>
> H only need to correctly predict that its input would never reach its
> own final state and terminate normally in 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.

Right, and it does when CORRECTLY (and completely) simulated or directly
executed.

H just aborts its simulation too soon.

Note, you are not allowed to change the code in the H the E calls when
you try to prove the never stops, which your incorrectly do in your proof.

Since H is defined to be a definite program, it can't be changed without
changing the behavior of E, and it will ALWAYS behave the way it does.

To test "unless", you can change the code of the deciding H, WITHOUT
changing the code of the H called by E, when you do that, you see that
the CORRECT simulation will halt.

You are just too stupid to understand this logic and make your proof
using the WRONG input to your altered simulator that doesn't abort.

Note, E is defined to call the ORIGINAL H, not whatever H you are using
under "otherwise" to test its answer.

FAIL.

>
>
>> if THE H does abor, the E returns, and H just doesn't do a "correct
>> simulation" that shows that E is non-halting, because it aborted.
>>
>> You can't look at the behavior of a different H than the one in the
>> problem.
>>
>> You computer seems to have faulty memory.
>>
>> FAIL.
>

On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 18:25:58 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/11/22 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
> >>>>>>>>> would have thought given your intelligence you would also
> >>>>>>>>> understand that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
> >>>>>>>> me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I
> >>>>>>>> say, even if not in a direct reply,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
> >>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives,
> >>>>>>>> I want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
> >>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
> >>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
> >>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
> >>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
> >>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
> >>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are
> >>>>>>> not in my target audience.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
> >>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
> >>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> void E(void (*x)())
> >>> {
> >>>   H(x, x);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
> >>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
> >>> correctly deny this.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
> >> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note,
> >> such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based
> >> on it doing so it just WRONG.
> >
> > The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference
> > category error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting wrong
> > is the mapping of the need to abort the simulation to a halt
> > decision of non-halting; it needs to instead be mapped to INVALID
> > INPUT.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Nope, no self reference.
>
> E just has a copy of the H that claim to be deciding it, not a
> "reference" to it. Turing Machines do not have the power to directly
> express a reference.

Nope, if it isn't a self reference then it is infinite copies all the
way down so is the same category error manifesting in a different
way.

/Flibble

On 11/11/2022 5:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 18:25:58 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/22 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>>>> would have thought given your intelligence you would also
>>>>>>>>>>> understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I
>>>>>>>>>> say, even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives,
>>>>>>>>>> I want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are
>>>>>>>>> not in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>>   H(x, x);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>>>> correctly deny this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>>>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note,
>>>> such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based
>>>> on it doing so it just WRONG.
>>>
>>> The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference
>>> category error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting wrong
>>> is the mapping of the need to abort the simulation to a halt
>>> decision of non-halting; it needs to instead be mapped to INVALID
>>> INPUT.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Nope, no self reference.
>>
>> E just has a copy of the H that claim to be deciding it, not a
>> "reference" to it. Turing Machines do not have the power to directly
>> express a reference.
>
> Nope, if it isn't a self reference then it is infinite copies all the
> way down so is the same category error manifesting in a different
> way.
>
> /Flibble
>

You are exactly correct and the Peter Linz proof proves it.

--
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 11/11/2022 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/11/22 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I
>>>>>>>>>>> say, even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives,
>>>>>>>>>>> I want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are
>>>>>>>>>> not in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    H(x, x);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>>>>> correctly deny this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>>>>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt.
>>>> If no H ever aborts its simulation of E then no E ever stops running
>>>> this conclusively proves that H is correct to abort its simulation
>>>> and report non-halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> if THE H doesn't abort, it doesn't answer.
>>>
>>
>> H only need to correctly predict that its input would never reach its
>> own final state and terminate normally in 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
>
> Right, and it does when CORRECTLY (and completely) simulated or directly
> executed.
>
> H just aborts its simulation too soon.

*This is the part where you are either incompetent or a liar*

Any expert in C knows that the correctly simulated E never reaches its
own final state even if an infinite number of steps are correctly
simulated. Thus H is correct to predict that its input never halts.

void E(void (*x)())
{ H(x, x);
}

int main() { H(E,E); }

--
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 11/11/22 6:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 18:25:58 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/22 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>>>> would have thought given your intelligence you would also
>>>>>>>>>>> understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I
>>>>>>>>>> say, even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives,
>>>>>>>>>> I want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are
>>>>>>>>> not in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>>   H(x, x);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>>>> correctly deny this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>>>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note,
>>>> such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based
>>>> on it doing so it just WRONG.
>>>
>>> The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference
>>> category error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting wrong
>>> is the mapping of the need to abort the simulation to a halt
>>> decision of non-halting; it needs to instead be mapped to INVALID
>>> INPUT.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Nope, no self reference.
>>
>> E just has a copy of the H that claim to be deciding it, not a
>> "reference" to it. Turing Machines do not have the power to directly
>> express a reference.
>
> Nope, if it isn't a self reference then it is infinite copies all the
> way down so is the same category error manifesting in a different
> way.
>
> /Flibble
>

Only if the "decider" makes that happen, in which case it isn't actually
a decider.

If we assume a prospective decider exists, then the "Impossible" program
is simple to make from it, and is given one copy of the description of
itself, which is also simple to make.

When run it makes a second copy of its description, and then calls the
decider.

After that, it is the deciders job to make the decision in finite time,
by whatever method it wants. If it gets stuck in your infinite loop, the
decider is just wrong.

The proof shows that what ever answer the decider does give (if it gives
one) will be wrong, and thus the decider doesn't meet the requirements.

No "Self Reference" in sight there only a program being given a copy of
something that just happens to be its own description.

The only place we get any form of "Reference", is when we try to ANALYSE
or DESIGN the H to try to meet the challenge. There the effect of the
Self-Reference just lets us see that the task turns out be be
impossible, so no such program exists.

On 11/11/22 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 6:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought given your intelligence you would also understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignores me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I
>>>>>>>>>>>> say, even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are
>>>>>>>>>>> not in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing
>>>>>>>>> machine (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>> by H provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    H(x, x);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game
>>>>>>> can correctly deny this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>>>>>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt.
>>>>> If no H ever aborts its simulation of E then no E ever stops
>>>>> running this conclusively proves that H is correct to abort its
>>>>> simulation and report non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if THE H doesn't abort, it doesn't answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> H only need to correctly predict that its input would never reach its
>>> own final state and terminate normally in 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
>>
>> Right, and it does when CORRECTLY (and completely) simulated or
>> directly executed.
>>
>> H just aborts its simulation too soon.
>
> *This is the part where you are either incompetent or a liar*
>
> Any expert in C knows that the correctly simulated E never reaches its
> own final state even if an infinite number of steps are correctly
> simulated. Thus H is correct to predict that its input never halts.

Nope, in fact you have PROVED the opposite. (Or do you forget that)

It just can't be done by H.

Note, the problem doesn't say "by H", that is your strawman, the problem
just references the behavior of the program, which can be seen by direct
execution or correct simulation.

A correct simulation or direct execution will see the H simulating for a
while, then aborting its simulation and returning 0 and E halting. (or
you H never gave what you claim to be the correct answer).

It just is a fact that an H that answer does abort its simulation before
it gets far enough to get the right answer, as is shown by an actual
correct simulation.

You are just too stupid to understand what you are doing.

>
> void E(void (*x)())
> {
>   H(x, x);
> }
>
> int main() { H(E,E); }
>

On 11/11/2022 6:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 6:55 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 18:25:58 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/11/22 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 16:44:49 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 3:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 12:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 1:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my understanding that Olcott has blocked you and I
>>>>>>>>>>>> would have thought given your intelligence you would also
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think he has actually blocked me, just mostly ignores
>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I say this because at times he seems to respond to what I
>>>>>>>>>>> say, even if not in a direct reply,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also, when someone like you replies, even if he has blocked
>>>>>>>>>>> me, he will still see me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> More importantly, If anyone naive wanders into the archives,
>>>>>>>>>>> I want enough evidence to be around to point out his errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note also, my longer replies shows what I know and provide
>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the claims, showing the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> His short claims, and guff replies just show that he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> actually know what he is talking about, and reveals his
>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance. If he tries to put his explanation into explicit
>>>>>>>>>>> words, his errors become very apparent, I think even to him,
>>>>>>>>>>> so he just refuses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You always use the strawman deception as your only basis.
>>>>>>>>>> Naive readers will never notice this, yet naive readers are
>>>>>>>>>> not in my target audience.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, because *I* use the actual definition of a Halting Decider.
>>>>>>>> Anyone that accepts the definition of a universal Turing machine
>>>>>>>> (UTM) knows that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>> provides H with a correct basis for its halt status decision.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But only if H DOES correctly simulate its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>      H(x, x);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any H that does abort its simulation to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> execution of E is correct to report non-halting. No shell game can
>>>>>> correctly deny this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any H that does aborts its simulation is INCORRECT because the
>>>>> CORRECT simulation, as will the diret exectuion, will halt. Note,
>>>>> such an H doesn't do a correct simulation, so any arguement based
>>>>> on it doing so it just WRONG.
>>>>
>>>> The need to abort the simulation is due to the self reference
>>>> category error present in the proof; what Olcott is getting wrong
>>>> is the mapping of the need to abort the simulation to a halt
>>>> decision of non-halting; it needs to instead be mapped to INVALID
>>>> INPUT.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> Nope, no self reference.
>>>
>>> E just has a copy of the H that claim to be deciding it, not a
>>> "reference" to it. Turing Machines do not have the power to directly
>>> express a reference.
>>
>> Nope, if it isn't a self reference then it is infinite copies all the
>> way down so is the same category error manifesting in a different
>> way.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> Only if the "decider" makes that happen, in which case it isn't actually
> a decider.
>

It is easy to see that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

When we remove extraneous complexity then
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

It is easy to see that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
cannot possibly reach a final state of ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ and halt.

> If we assume a prospective decider exists, then the "Impossible" program
> is simple to make from it, and is given one copy of the description of
> itself, which is also simple to make.
>
> When run it makes a second copy of its description, and then calls the
> decider.
>
> After that, it is the deciders job to make the decision in finite time,
> by whatever method it wants. If it gets stuck in your infinite loop, the
> decider is just wrong.
>
> The proof shows that what ever answer the decider does give (if it gives
> one) will be wrong, and thus the decider doesn't meet the requirements.
>
> No "Self Reference" in sight there only a program being given a copy of
> something that just happens to be its own description.
>
> The only place we get any form of "Reference", is when we try to ANALYSE
> or DESIGN the H to try to meet the challenge. There the effect of the
> Self-Reference just lets us see that the task turns out be be
> impossible, so no such program exists.

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