On 11/12/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:04 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/22 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 8:31 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> I made the basis of my proof much easier to understand so that
>>>>> anyone that is an expert in the C programming language would be
>>>>> able to understand a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H(x, x);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 it correctly predicts that D correctly
>>>>> simulated by H would never reach its own final state and
>>>>> terminate normally after 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I predict that no one will be able to find any actual error with
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if it doesn't bust the compiler, run it through a code checker,
>>>> lots of free ones out there
>>>>
>>>> https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c_compiler
>>>
>>>
>>> The last remaining issue is the acceptance of the notion of a
>>> simulating halt decider.
>>
>> Why, It is actually a well know concept, as a PARTIAL solution of the
>> problem.
>>
>> I remember it being shown as why you CAN'T just solve the problem
>> with one.
>>
>> Your ignorance of the history of this topic has doomed you to repeat
>> all the errors that others have made in the past.
>
> A simulating halt decider is Olcott's idea.
>
> /Flibble
>

Thanks. I was thinking about filing a trademark on 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 Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
> > problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
> > not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
> > tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
> > error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
> > reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
> > fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
> > to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in Strachey's
> program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle ANY input and
> answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make infinite copies,
> then the decided just doesn't meet its requirements.
>
> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error if H
> is actualy a Turing Machine.
>
> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is admitting
> that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must be of a
> HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the requirement to be
> the needed decider.

On 11/12/2022 8:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/11/22 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes and when embedded_H can predict this in a finite number of steps
>>>> then it is a halt decider for ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that it can't do that since it is shown that H^ <H^> Will halt
>>> in this case, so it is impossible to correctly predict that a correct
>>> simulation of the input <H^> <H^> will not halt.
>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict (in a finite number
>> of steps whether or not its simulated input would ever stop running if
>> it never aborted its simulation of its input.
>>
>>
>
> Right, it must, but it can't. Again, your Egish is lacking because you
> are too stupid.
>
> If you claim it can, what pattern did it use to detect this, that ALWAYS
> shows the program is non-halting?
>
> I will note that E(E) calling H(E,E) is NOT such a pattern, as E(E) will
> halt if H(E,E) is defined to abort that simulation and return 0.
void Infinite_Loop()
{ HERE: goto HERE;
}

It is an easily verified fact that Infinite_Loop correctly simulated by
H would never reach its own last instruction and terminate normally
after 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.

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

It is an easily verified fact that E correctly simulated by H would
never reach its own last instruction and terminate normally after 1 to ∞
steps of correct simulation.

--
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 Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
> > problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
> > not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
> > tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
> > error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
> > reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
> > fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
> > to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in Strachey's
> program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle ANY input and
> answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make infinite copies,
> then the decided just doesn't meet its requirements.
>
> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error if H
> is actualy a Turing Machine.
>
> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is admitting
> that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must be of a
> HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the requirement to be
> the needed decider.

On 11/12/22 9:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
>>> problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
>>> not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
>>> tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
>>> error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
>>> reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
>>> fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
>>> to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in Strachey's
>> program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle ANY input and
>> answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make infinite copies,
>> then the decided just doesn't meet its requirements.
>>
>> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
>> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
>> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error if H
>> is actualy a Turing Machine.
>>
>> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is admitting
>> that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must be of a
>> HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the requirement to be
>> the needed decider.
>
> In which case we get infinite turning machines all the way down: yet
> another manifestation of the category error I have identified.
>
> /Flibble
>

On 11/12/2022 8:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/11/22 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/11/2022 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/11/22 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not? Don't you claim that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will go to H.qn to say
>>>>>>> that it its input doesn't stop? So a correct simulation of that
>>>>>>> input will do that too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H will never reach ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If embedded_H does "Correctly Simulate" this input, then it is the
>>>>> case that H never aborts its simulation, and thus H will never
>>>>> return an answer.
>>>>
>>>> Yes and when embedded_H can predict this in a finite number of steps
>>>> then it is a halt decider for ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that it can't do that since it is shown that H^ <H^> Will halt
>>> in this case, so it is impossible to correctly predict that a correct
>>> simulation of the input <H^> <H^> will not halt.
>>>
>>
>> When simulating halt decider embedded_H transitions to its reject
>> state ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ it is correctly predicting that ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by
>> embedded_H would never reach its own final state in 1 to ∞ steps of
>> correct simulation.
>>
>
> How it that a correct prediction of a correct simulation if the input
> wil halt when run?

On 11/12/22 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:04 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/12/22 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:31 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I made the basis of my proof much easier to understand so that
>>>>>> anyone that is an expert in the C programming language would be
>>>>>> able to understand a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     H(x, x);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 it correctly predicts that D correctly
>>>>>> simulated by H would never reach its own final state and
>>>>>> terminate normally after 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I predict that no one will be able to find any actual error with
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> if it doesn't bust the compiler, run it through a code checker,
>>>>> lots of free ones out there
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c_compiler
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The last remaining issue is the acceptance of the notion of a
>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> Why, It is actually a well know concept, as a PARTIAL solution of the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> I remember it being shown as why you CAN'T just solve the problem
>>> with one.
>>>
>>> Your ignorance of the history of this topic has doomed you to repeat
>>> all the errors that others have made in the past.
>>
>> A simulating halt decider is Olcott's idea.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> Thanks. I was thinking about filing a trademark on it.
>

Go ahead and waste your money.

I remember the discussion of trying to determine halting by simulation
back in my school days, so not a new concept. Normally showing the
simple reasons about why it doesn't work.

Note, this is pre-internet, so your Google searches not bringing it up
is understandable.

Likely didn't reach "published papers" as it was a well known dead end
so no need to write the paper.

On 11/12/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 8:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/22 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not? Don't you claim that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ will go to H.qn to say
>>>>>>>> that it its input doesn't stop? So a correct simulation of that
>>>>>>>> input will do that too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H will never reach ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If embedded_H does "Correctly Simulate" this input, then it is the
>>>>>> case that H never aborts its simulation, and thus H will never
>>>>>> return an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes and when embedded_H can predict this in a finite number of
>>>>> steps then it is a halt decider for ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that it can't do that since it is shown that H^ <H^> Will
>>>> halt in this case, so it is impossible to correctly predict that a
>>>> correct simulation of the input <H^> <H^> will not halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When simulating halt decider embedded_H transitions to its reject
>>> state ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ it is correctly predicting that ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by
>>> embedded_H would never reach its own final state in 1 to ∞ steps of
>>> correct simulation.
>>>
>>
>> How it that a correct prediction of a correct simulation if the input
>> wil halt when run?
>
> Neither the directly executed E nor correctly simulated E ever stops
> running unless the simulated E is aborted. This conclusively proves that
> the simulated E specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:52:12 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/12/22 9:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
> >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
> >>> problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
> >>> not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
> >>> tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
> >>> error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
> >>> reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
> >>> fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
> >>> to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in
> >> Strachey's program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle
> >> ANY input and answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make
> >> infinite copies, then the decided just doesn't meet its
> >> requirements.
> >>
> >> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
> >> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
> >> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error
> >> if H is actualy a Turing Machine.
> >>
> >> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is
> >> admitting that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must
> >> be of a HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the
> >> requirement to be the needed decider.
> >
> > In which case we get infinite turning machines all the way down: yet
> > another manifestation of the category error I have identified.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Where are infinite machines? There is ONE machine being run, either H
> or D, and it SIMULATING others, and if we get an infinite sequence of
> simulations we have just shown that H was defective because it failed
> to answer in finite time.
>
> This isn't a category error, but a design error in H.
>
> Note, when we start H, there is exactly two machines present in
> representation on the tape, and two is much smaller than infinity.

On 11/12/22 9:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 8:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/11/22 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2022 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/11/22 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/22 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes and when embedded_H can predict this in a finite number of
>>>>> steps then it is a halt decider for ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that it can't do that since it is shown that H^ <H^> Will
>>>> halt in this case, so it is impossible to correctly predict that a
>>>> correct simulation of the input <H^> <H^> will not halt.
>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict (in a finite number
>>> of steps whether or not its simulated input would ever stop running
>>> if it never aborted its simulation of its input.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, it must, but it can't. Again, your Egish is lacking because you
>> are too stupid.
>>
>> If you claim it can, what pattern did it use to detect this, that
>> ALWAYS shows the program is non-halting?
>>
>> I will note that E(E) calling H(E,E) is NOT such a pattern, as E(E)
>> will halt if H(E,E) is defined to abort that simulation and return 0.
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>   HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> It is an easily verified fact that Infinite_Loop correctly simulated by
> H would never reach its own last instruction and terminate normally
> after 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>
> void E(void (*x)())
> {
>   H(x, x);
> }
>
> It is an easily verified fact that E correctly simulated by H would
> never reach its own last instruction and terminate normally after 1 to ∞
> steps of correct simulation.
>
>

Then verify it. Hard to do since E(E) does halt since H(E,E) returns 0.

You seem to think that a correct simulation can act differently then
then the thing it is simulating, which is just definitionally incorrect.

The fact that it can get a simple case right is not proof that it can
get the more complicated correctly, but a classic fallacy that you
apparently don't understand due to your lack of knowledge,

You are just confirming your stupidity by your stupid claims.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:06:48 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> You are just confirming your stupidity by your stupid claims.

Try arguing using facts and logic rather than ad hominem attacks.

/Flibble

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:58:47 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/12/22 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> > On 11/12/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:04 -0500
> >> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/12/22 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 11/11/2022 8:31 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I made the basis of my proof much easier to understand so that
> >>>>>> anyone that is an expert in the C programming language would be
> >>>>>> able to understand a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>>     H(x, x);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 it correctly predicts that D correctly
> >>>>>> simulated by H would never reach its own final state and
> >>>>>> terminate normally after 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I predict that no one will be able to find any actual error
> >>>>>> with that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> if it doesn't bust the compiler, run it through a code checker,
> >>>>> lots of free ones out there
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c_compiler
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The last remaining issue is the acceptance of the notion of a
> >>>> simulating halt decider.
> >>>
> >>> Why, It is actually a well know concept, as a PARTIAL solution of
> >>> the problem.
> >>>
> >>> I remember it being shown as why you CAN'T just solve the problem
> >>> with one.
> >>>
> >>> Your ignorance of the history of this topic has doomed you to
> >>> repeat all the errors that others have made in the past.
> >>
> >> A simulating halt decider is Olcott's idea.
> >>
> >> /Flibble
> >>
> >
> > Thanks. I was thinking about filing a trademark on it.
> >
>
> Go ahead and waste your money.
>
> I remember the discussion of trying to determine halting by
> simulation back in my school days, so not a new concept. Normally
> showing the simple reasons about why it doesn't work.
>
> Note, this is pre-internet, so your Google searches not bringing it
> up is understandable.
>
> Likely didn't reach "published papers" as it was a well known dead
> end so no need to write the paper.

On 11/12/22 10:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:52:12 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/22 9:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
>>>>> problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
>>>>> not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
>>>>> tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
>>>>> error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
>>>>> reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
>>>>> fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
>>>>> to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in
>>>> Strachey's program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle
>>>> ANY input and answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make
>>>> infinite copies, then the decided just doesn't meet its
>>>> requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
>>>> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
>>>> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error
>>>> if H is actualy a Turing Machine.
>>>>
>>>> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is
>>>> admitting that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must
>>>> be of a HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the
>>>> requirement to be the needed decider.
>>>
>>> In which case we get infinite turning machines all the way down: yet
>>> another manifestation of the category error I have identified.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Where are infinite machines? There is ONE machine being run, either H
>> or D, and it SIMULATING others, and if we get an infinite sequence of
>> simulations we have just shown that H was defective because it failed
>> to answer in finite time.
>>
>> This isn't a category error, but a design error in H.
>>
>> Note, when we start H, there is exactly two machines present in
>> representation on the tape, and two is much smaller than infinity.
>
> Nope, if,
>
> a) H is a copy, and
> b) H is a Turing Machine, and
> c) D is an input into H, and
> d) D references H, and
> e) H references D,
>
> then (d) and (e) repeat ad infinitum so we get infinite Turing Machines
> all the way down: a manifestation of the category error I have
> identified.
>
> /Flibble
>

On 11/12/2022 8:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/12/22 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/12/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:04 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/12/22 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:31 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I made the basis of my proof much easier to understand so that
>>>>>>> anyone that is an expert in the C programming language would be
>>>>>>> able to understand a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>     H(x, x);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 it correctly predicts that D correctly
>>>>>>> simulated by H would never reach its own final state and
>>>>>>> terminate normally after 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I predict that no one will be able to find any actual error with
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if it doesn't bust the compiler, run it through a code checker,
>>>>>> lots of free ones out there
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c_compiler
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The last remaining issue is the acceptance of the notion of a
>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> Why, It is actually a well know concept, as a PARTIAL solution of the
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>> I remember it being shown as why you CAN'T just solve the problem
>>>> with one.
>>>>
>>>> Your ignorance of the history of this topic has doomed you to repeat
>>>> all the errors that others have made in the past.
>>>
>>> A simulating halt decider is Olcott's idea.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. I was thinking about filing a trademark on it.
>>
>
> Go ahead and waste your money.
>
> I remember the discussion of trying to determine halting by simulation
> back in my school days, so not a new concept. Normally showing the
> simple reasons about why it doesn't work.
>

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:26:30 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> All you are showing is that a "Simulating Halting Decider" that is
> based on unconditional simulation is a failed method of decision.

The corollary being that a simulating halting decider proves that what
I am saying is correct; the onus is on you to prove that a SHD is not a
valid halt decider type.

/Flibble

On 11/12/22 10:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:58:47 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/22 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:04 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/12/22 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:31 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I made the basis of my proof much easier to understand so that
>>>>>>>> anyone that is an expert in the C programming language would be
>>>>>>>> able to understand a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>     H(x, x);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 it correctly predicts that D correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated by H would never reach its own final state and
>>>>>>>> terminate normally after 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I predict that no one will be able to find any actual error
>>>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if it doesn't bust the compiler, run it through a code checker,
>>>>>>> lots of free ones out there
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c_compiler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last remaining issue is the acceptance of the notion of a
>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, It is actually a well know concept, as a PARTIAL solution of
>>>>> the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember it being shown as why you CAN'T just solve the problem
>>>>> with one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your ignorance of the history of this topic has doomed you to
>>>>> repeat all the errors that others have made in the past.
>>>>
>>>> A simulating halt decider is Olcott's idea.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks. I was thinking about filing a trademark on it.
>>>
>>
>> Go ahead and waste your money.
>>
>> I remember the discussion of trying to determine halting by
>> simulation back in my school days, so not a new concept. Normally
>> showing the simple reasons about why it doesn't work.
>>
>> Note, this is pre-internet, so your Google searches not bringing it
>> up is understandable.
>>
>> Likely didn't reach "published papers" as it was a well known dead
>> end so no need to write the paper.
>
> So you have no evidence to backup that claim. So no prior art leaving
> Olcott free to trademark or file a patent.
>
> /Flibble
>

On 11/12/22 10:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/12/2022 8:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/12/22 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:04 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/12/22 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:31 PM, Sergi o wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I made the basis of my proof much easier to understand so that
>>>>>>>> anyone that is an expert in the C programming language would be
>>>>>>>> able to understand a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>     H(x, x);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 it correctly predicts that D correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated by H would never reach its own final state and
>>>>>>>> terminate normally after 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I predict that no one will be able to find any actual error with
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if it doesn't bust the compiler, run it through a code checker,
>>>>>>> lots of free ones out there
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c_compiler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last remaining issue is the acceptance of the notion of a
>>>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, It is actually a well know concept, as a PARTIAL solution of the
>>>>> problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember it being shown as why you CAN'T just solve the problem
>>>>> with one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your ignorance of the history of this topic has doomed you to repeat
>>>>> all the errors that others have made in the past.
>>>>
>>>> A simulating halt decider is Olcott's idea.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks. I was thinking about filing a trademark on it.
>>>
>>
>> Go ahead and waste your money.
>>
>> I remember the discussion of trying to determine halting by simulation
>> back in my school days, so not a new concept. Normally showing the
>> simple reasons about why it doesn't work.
>>
>
> What you are remembering is that a halt decider cannot correctly
> determine the halt status of an input by only simulating this input
> because some inputs never terminate.
>
> A simulating halt decider simulates its input in debug step mode and
> examines the execution trace of this input for non-halting behavior
> patterns.

On 11/12/2022 9:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:52:12 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/22 9:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
>>>>> problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
>>>>> not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
>>>>> tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
>>>>> error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
>>>>> reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
>>>>> fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
>>>>> to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in
>>>> Strachey's program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle
>>>> ANY input and answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make
>>>> infinite copies, then the decided just doesn't meet its
>>>> requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
>>>> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
>>>> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error
>>>> if H is actualy a Turing Machine.
>>>>
>>>> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is
>>>> admitting that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must
>>>> be of a HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the
>>>> requirement to be the needed decider.
>>>
>>> In which case we get infinite turning machines all the way down: yet
>>> another manifestation of the category error I have identified.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Where are infinite machines? There is ONE machine being run, either H
>> or D, and it SIMULATING others, and if we get an infinite sequence of
>> simulations we have just shown that H was defective because it failed
>> to answer in finite time.
>>
>> This isn't a category error, but a design error in H.
>>
>> Note, when we start H, there is exactly two machines present in
>> representation on the tape, and two is much smaller than infinity.
>
> Nope, if,
>
> a) H is a copy, and
> b) H is a Turing Machine, and
> c) D is an input into H, and
> d) D references H, and
> e) H references D,
>
> then (d) and (e) repeat ad infinitum so we get infinite Turing Machines
> all the way down: a manifestation of the category error I have
> identified.
>
> /Flibble
>

On 11/12/2022 9:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:52:12 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/22 9:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:32:23 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/12/22 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 19:24:53 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are fractally wrong on all fronts: in the traditional halting
>>>>> problem proofs based on [Strachey 1965] the program is impossible
>>>>> not due to self reference or infinite copies but because the input
>>>>> tries to do the opposite of what the decider decides; the category
>>>>> error that I have identified is different: it is an error of self
>>>>> reference and/or infinite copies; it is an error related to the
>>>>> fact that the input references a decider rather than being related
>>>>> to what the input does with the decision result of a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the infinite copies is a error in the Decider, not in
>>>> Strachey's program. The decider is SUPPOSED to be able to handle
>>>> ANY input and answer in finite time, If an input causes it to make
>>>> infinite copies, then the decided just doesn't meet its
>>>> requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Turing Machine can ALWAYS be legally built based on another Turing
>>>> Machine as a base. The only reason it wouldn't be allowed is if H
>>>> isn't actually a Turing Machine, so it CAN'T be a category error
>>>> if H is actualy a Turing Machine.
>>>>
>>>> All your declaration of a "Category Error" here is doing is
>>>> admitting that your H can't actually be a Turing Machine, but must
>>>> be of a HIGHER order logic system, which means H fails the
>>>> requirement to be the needed decider.
>>>
>>> In which case we get infinite turning machines all the way down: yet
>>> another manifestation of the category error I have identified.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Where are infinite machines? There is ONE machine being run, either H
>> or D, and it SIMULATING others, and if we get an infinite sequence of
>> simulations we have just shown that H was defective because it failed
>> to answer in finite time.
>>
>> This isn't a category error, but a design error in H.
>>
>> Note, when we start H, there is exactly two machines present in
>> representation on the tape, and two is much smaller than infinity.
>
> Nope, if,
>
> a) H is a copy, and
> b) H is a Turing Machine, and
> c) D is an input into H, and
> d) D references H, and
> e) H references D,
>
> then (d) and (e) repeat ad infinitum so we get infinite Turing Machines
> all the way down: a manifestation of the category error I have
> identified.
>
> /Flibble
>

On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:41:58 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/12/22 10:16 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:58:47 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/12/22 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 11/12/2022 8:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 09:15:04 -0500
> >>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 11/12/22 12:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:31 PM, Sergi o wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/11/2022 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 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?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I made the basis of my proof much easier to understand so
> >>>>>>>> that anyone that is an expert in the C programming language
> >>>>>>>> would be able to understand a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> void E(void (*x)())
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>     H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 it correctly predicts that D correctly
> >>>>>>>> simulated by H would never reach its own final state and
> >>>>>>>> terminate normally after 1 to ∞ of correct simulation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I predict that no one will be able to find any actual error
> >>>>>>>> with that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> if it doesn't bust the compiler, run it through a code
> >>>>>>> checker, lots of free ones out there
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c_compiler
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The last remaining issue is the acceptance of the notion of a
> >>>>>> simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why, It is actually a well know concept, as a PARTIAL solution
> >>>>> of the problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I remember it being shown as why you CAN'T just solve the
> >>>>> problem with one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your ignorance of the history of this topic has doomed you to
> >>>>> repeat all the errors that others have made in the past.
> >>>>
> >>>> A simulating halt decider is Olcott's idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> /Flibble
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks. I was thinking about filing a trademark on it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Go ahead and waste your money.
> >>
> >> I remember the discussion of trying to determine halting by
> >> simulation back in my school days, so not a new concept. Normally
> >> showing the simple reasons about why it doesn't work.
> >>
> >> Note, this is pre-internet, so your Google searches not bringing it
> >> up is understandable.
> >>
> >> Likely didn't reach "published papers" as it was a well known dead
> >> end so no need to write the paper.
> >
> > So you have no evidence to backup that claim. So no prior art
> > leaving Olcott free to trademark or file a patent.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> He can't file a patent, as he has publicly disclosed the idea too
> long ago. Public disclosure precludes later patent. If he filed a
> preliminary patent BEFORE disclosure, he is given a limited amount of
> time to finalize it, but I think too much time has passed now for
> that to be an option.
>
> There is also the problem tha that you need to demonstrate that it
> works.

On 11/12/22 10:12 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:06:48 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>> You are just confirming your stupidity by your stupid claims.
>
> Try arguing using facts and logic rather than ad hominem attacks.
>
> /Flibble
>

Please re-read what you snipped.

Ad-hominem would be saying he is wrong because he is stupid, using
claimed characteristics of the "hominem" to try to "prove" a statement.

Note, I am using the fact that he is wrong, as previously proven, to
show his "hominem" has a characteristic. That is NOT "ad-hominem", but
this detail is probably something too subtle for you.

Note, this is different than how Olcott uses it, where he doesn't
actually show ANY evidence his opponent is wrong, but just says they
must be too stupid as anyone smart enough would see he is right, which
just compounds that fallacies.

On 11/12/22 10:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 10:26:30 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>> All you are showing is that a "Simulating Halting Decider" that is
>> based on unconditional simulation is a failed method of decision.
>
> The corollary being that a simulating halting decider proves that what
> I am saying is correct; the onus is on you to prove that a SHD is not a
> valid halt decider type.
>
> /Flibble
>