On 2022-11-14 09:17, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 00:37, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/13/22 6:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:07:07 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/13/22 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> No, Olcott just says that.
>>>>
>>>> I say you are wrong because .... and explain the error.
>>>
>>> But what's the point? You should know by now that whatever you say will
>>> not make any difference.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> I may not save Olcott, but perhaps I might help some other observer
>> from being mislead.
>
> I do not believe that excuse - it is one of those post-hoc
> rationalisations people come up with to justify their behaviour after
> they have decided to do it anyway for whatever reason.  In your case,
> you just like spending your day arguing with PO - perhaps you've nothing
> else to be doing, and this gives your day some structure.  Whatever...
> The good news is that your time is your own of course, and you are doing
> nobody any harm!

Actually, I'm not sure about that.

Olcott's obsessive posting on this topic cannot be good for his already
fragile mental health, so by keeping this thread alive you could argue
he is potentially doing harm to Olcott.

André

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

On 11/14/2022 12:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-11-14 09:17, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 14/11/2022 00:37, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/13/22 6:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:07:07 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Olcott just says that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say you are wrong because .... and explain the error.
>>>>
>>>> But what's the point? You should know by now that whatever you say will
>>>> not make any difference.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> I may not save Olcott, but perhaps I might help some other observer
>>> from being mislead.
>>
>> I do not believe that excuse - it is one of those post-hoc
>> rationalisations people come up with to justify their behaviour after
>> they have decided to do it anyway for whatever reason.  In your case,
>> you just like spending your day arguing with PO - perhaps you've
>> nothing else to be doing, and this gives your day some structure.
>> Whatever... The good news is that your time is your own of course, and
>> you are doing nobody any harm!
>
> Actually, I'm not sure about that.
>
> Olcott's obsessive posting on this topic cannot be good for his already
> fragile mental health, so by keeping this thread alive you could argue
> he is potentially doing harm to Olcott.
>
> André
>

*That you use ad homimen as your basis is despicable*
*That you use ad homimen as your basis is despicable*
*That you use ad homimen as your basis is despicable*

(A) The definition of a UTM proves that the behavior of D correctly
simulated by H is a correct halt deciding basis for simulating halt
decider H.

(B) That the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
matches what the line-by-line x86 source code of D specifies
conclusively proves that the simulation of D by H is correct.

H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:112afc
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[000019e3][00112ae8][00112aec] 55 push ebp // begin D
[000019e4][00112ae8][00112aec] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000019e6][00112ae4][00102ab8] 51 push ecx
[000019e7][00112ae4][00102ab8] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000019ea][00112ae0][000019e3] 50 push eax // push D
[000019eb][00112ae0][000019e3] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000019ee][00112adc][000019e3] 51 push ecx // push D
[000019ef][00112ad8][000019f4] e88ff9ffff call 00001383 // call H
H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

(C) You and I and H can see that D is about to call H again with its
same arguments and you and I and H can see the there are no instructions
from the beginning of D to its call to H that can possibly prevent this
from repeating. This proves that the correctly simulated D cannot
possibly reach its final state and terminate normally, thus is non-halting.

THIS IS THE PART THAT ALL OF MY REVIEWERS GET WRONG
*When A&B&C entails X and A&B&C it true then X*
*is entailed no matter what or who disagrees*

THIS IS THE PART THAT ALL OF MY REVIEWERS GET WRONG
*When A&B&C entails X and A&B&C it true then X*
*is entailed no matter what or who disagrees*

THIS IS THE PART THAT ALL OF MY REVIEWERS GET WRONG
*When A&B&C entails X and A&B&C it true then X*
*is entailed no matter what or who disagrees*

A&B&C also meets the Sipser approved criteria: H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted (This is a tautology)

--
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 Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
> >>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
> >>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
> >>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, it's more like:
> >>>>
> >>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
> >>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
> >>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
> >>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
> >>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong because
> >>>> B, and F is wrong because G.
> >>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but I'm
> >>>> RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> In the mean time since your last visit:
> >>>
> >>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
> >>> the theory of computation) has agreed that the following verbatim
> >>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else):
> >>>
> >>>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
> >>>     D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
> >>>     never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
> >>>     simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
> >>>     non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a correct
> >> AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never halt.
> >>
> >
> > You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation of P
> > by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things that you
> > already agreed to?
> >
> >> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
> >> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
> >> show the result.
> >>
> >> You don't do that.
> >
> > You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
> > correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
> > correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
> > correct partial simulation of D by H.
> >
> > Why do you insist on lying about this?
> >
>
> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
> non-halting.
>
> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that DOESN'T
> HAPPEN.

Nonsense.

A partial simulation of:

void f()
{ infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
}

is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
repeated machine state.

Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of non-halting
in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY DEFINITION (a halt
decider must always return a result in finite time).

/Flibble

On 11/14/2022 1:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
>>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
>>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong because
>>>>>> B, and F is wrong because G.
>>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but I'm
>>>>>> RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
>>>>>
>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>> the theory of computation) has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else):
>>>>>
>>>>>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>     D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
>>>>>     never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
>>>>>     simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>>>>     non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a correct
>>>> AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation of P
>>> by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things that you
>>> already agreed to?
>>>
>>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
>>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
>>>> show the result.
>>>>
>>>> You don't do that.
>>>
>>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
>>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
>>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
>>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
>>>
>>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
>>>
>>
>> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
>> non-halting.
>>
>> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that DOESN'T
>> HAPPEN.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> A partial simulation of:
>
> void f()
> {
> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> }
>
> is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
> repeated machine state.
>
> Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of non-halting
> in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY DEFINITION (a halt
> decider must always return a result in finite time).
>
> /Flibble
>

He knows that and doesn't care. He looks for every lame excuse to form
any rebuttal that would at least convince gullible fools that are not
paying enough attention to see that he is lying.

Now the best rebuttal that Andre has is ad hominem thus confirming that
I was right all along. Andre previously was pretty good at sticking to
the actual facts.

Now that he knows that there are no such facts that can be used for
rebuttal he switches to ad hominem because that is all that is left
besides simply admitted the truth that I was right all along.

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

On 11/14/2022 10:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 00:37, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/13/22 6:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:07:07 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/13/22 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> No, Olcott just says that.
>>>>
>>>> I say you are wrong because .... and explain the error.
>>>
>>> But what's the point? You should know by now that whatever you say will
>>> not make any difference.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> I may not save Olcott, but perhaps I might help some other observer
>> from being mislead.
>
> I do not believe that excuse - it is one of those post-hoc
> rationalisations people come up with to justify their behaviour after
> they have decided to do it anyway for whatever reason.  In your case,
> you just like spending your day arguing with PO - perhaps you've nothing
> else to be doing, and this gives your day some structure.  Whatever...
> The good news is that your time is your own of course, and you are doing
> nobody any harm!  (You are doing nobody any good either - the only
> difference between your posting / not posting is the obvious visible
> difference - this newsgroup becomes full of rubbish posts and PO is
> encouraged to continue posting here, getting exactly what he wants.)
>
> Have you /ever/ approached reading newsgroups with the attitude that
> whatever anyone claims is the truth if nobody contradicts it?  Perhaps
> the very first UseNet post you ever read, you thought "I'm about to read
> something someone else has typed on their computer, so I'd better be
> ready to Hear The Truth!"  No, you are not an idiot, so why credit
> others with less intelligence?
>
> The truth is that there /may/ be a person somewhere in the world who
> would see Olcott's posts and think "hey, this guy claims he has
> disproved the halting theorem, whatever that is, so it seems all the
> books must be wrong - I don't follow his argument, but clearly PO must
> truly be a genius!".  Are you really concerned about such a person's
> view?  Firstly they would have to understand nothing about the actual
> problem, secondly they are themselves an idiot for believing without
> evidence or understanding, and thirdly they have no effect on the rest
> of the world, so who cares if they are taken in?  They would deserve to
> be!  :)
>
> If you truly believed your explanation for posting, a much better (and
> less effort) response would be to simply point out that PO is a crank
> who's been posting on this for 20 years, and every else here has just
> got fed up with him and decided to ignore him.  That's ONE post you
> would make, not 30 repeating the same over and over and over, amplifying
> PO's impact on the group...  (Cranks have almost no impact unless there
> are the associated crank-stalkers amplifying their actions, so that
> makes the crank-stalkers as much a part of the problem as the original
> crank.)
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike.

If my ideas have no merit then why would MIT professor Michael Sipser
have approved the abstract to this paper (a rebuttal of his own proof) ?

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof

MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
verbatim paragraph is correct *he has not agreed to anything*
*else in this paper*

If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation
of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
of configurations.

Ben has told everyone to stop talking with me because he acknowledges:

On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> H /can/ correctly determine this ...

Ben knows that once the above paragraph from my abstract is accepted as
correct that the rest of my work is proved to be correct entirely on the
basis of software engineering.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/14/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 10:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 14/11/2022 00:37, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/13/22 6:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:07:07 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Olcott just says that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say you are wrong because .... and explain the error.
>>>>
>>>> But what's the point? You should know by now that whatever you say will
>>>> not make any difference.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> I may not save Olcott, but perhaps I might help some other observer
>>> from being mislead.
>>
>> I do not believe that excuse - it is one of those post-hoc
>> rationalisations people come up with to justify their behaviour after
>> they have decided to do it anyway for whatever reason.  In your case,
>> you just like spending your day arguing with PO - perhaps you've
>> nothing else to be doing, and this gives your day some structure.
>> Whatever... The good news is that your time is your own of course, and
>> you are doing nobody any harm!  (You are doing nobody any good either
>> - the only difference between your posting / not posting is the
>> obvious visible difference - this newsgroup becomes full of rubbish
>> posts and PO is encouraged to continue posting here, getting exactly
>> what he wants.)
>>
>> Have you /ever/ approached reading newsgroups with the attitude that
>> whatever anyone claims is the truth if nobody contradicts it?  Perhaps
>> the very first UseNet post you ever read, you thought "I'm about to
>> read something someone else has typed on their computer, so I'd better
>> be ready to Hear The Truth!"  No, you are not an idiot, so why credit
>> others with less intelligence?
>>
>> The truth is that there /may/ be a person somewhere in the world who
>> would see Olcott's posts and think "hey, this guy claims he has
>> disproved the halting theorem, whatever that is, so it seems all the
>> books must be wrong - I don't follow his argument, but clearly PO must
>> truly be a genius!".  Are you really concerned about such a person's
>> view?  Firstly they would have to understand nothing about the actual
>> problem, secondly they are themselves an idiot for believing without
>> evidence or understanding, and thirdly they have no effect on the rest
>> of the world, so who cares if they are taken in?  They would deserve
>> to be!  :)
>>
>> If you truly believed your explanation for posting, a much better (and
>> less effort) response would be to simply point out that PO is a crank
>> who's been posting on this for 20 years, and every else here has just
>> got fed up with him and decided to ignore him.  That's ONE post you
>> would make, not 30 repeating the same over and over and over,
>> amplifying PO's impact on the group...  (Cranks have almost no impact
>> unless there are the associated crank-stalkers amplifying their
>> actions, so that makes the crank-stalkers as much a part of the
>> problem as the original crank.)
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike.
>
> If my ideas have no merit then why would MIT professor Michael Sipser
> have approved the abstract to this paper (a rebuttal of his own proof) ?
>
> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>
>    MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following
>    verbatim paragraph is correct *he has not agreed to anything*
>    *else in this paper*
>
>    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>    stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation
>    of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence
>    of configurations.
>
> Ben has told everyone to stop talking with me because he acknowledges:
>
> On 10/17/2022 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > D(D) would not halt unless H stops the simulation.
> > H /can/ correctly determine this ...
>
> Ben knows that once the above paragraph from my abstract is accepted as
> correct that the rest of my work is proved to be correct entirely on the
> basis of software engineering.
>
>

Maybe you should ask permission to use his name, and if he agrees with
your interpretation of what he agrees to.

Did he actually approve it as an abstract to your paper, or just as an
idle question out of context?

Your big problem is that you don't understand the language that he would
be assuming you are using, so you don't understand what he actually
agreed to.

On 11/14/22 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 12:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-11-14 09:17, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 14/11/2022 00:37, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/22 6:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 18:07:07 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Olcott just says that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say you are wrong because .... and explain the error.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what's the point? You should know by now that whatever you say
>>>>> will
>>>>> not make any difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I may not save Olcott, but perhaps I might help some other observer
>>>> from being mislead.
>>>
>>> I do not believe that excuse - it is one of those post-hoc
>>> rationalisations people come up with to justify their behaviour after
>>> they have decided to do it anyway for whatever reason.  In your case,
>>> you just like spending your day arguing with PO - perhaps you've
>>> nothing else to be doing, and this gives your day some structure.
>>> Whatever... The good news is that your time is your own of course,
>>> and you are doing nobody any harm!
>>
>> Actually, I'm not sure about that.
>>
>> Olcott's obsessive posting on this topic cannot be good for his
>> already fragile mental health, so by keeping this thread alive you
>> could argue he is potentially doing harm to Olcott.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> *That you use ad homimen as your basis is despicable*
> *That you use ad homimen as your basis is despicable*
> *That you use ad homimen as your basis is despicable*

It isn't an ad homimen, as it isn't asserting something about your
arguement based on something about you.

Just shows your ignorance.

>
> (A) The definition of a UTM proves that the behavior of D correctly
> simulated by H is a correct halt deciding basis for simulating halt
> decider H.

Incorrecgt statement.

The definition of a UTM states that the behavior of D correctly
simulated by a UTM is a correct halt deciding basis for a simulating
Halt Decider. (no "by H" or for H)

H is NOT a UTM if it aborts its simulation, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE
for a Halt Decider to base its decision to halt merely on the fact that
its own simulation has not reach a final state. PERIOD.

>
> (B) That the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
> matches what the line-by-line x86 source code of D specifies
> conclusively proves that the simulation of D by H is correct.

No, since you are using "correct simulation" by itself to indicate
non-halting, the only definition of "correct simulation" that applies is
a corrext and COMPLETE simulation, which H does not do.

>
> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:112afc
>  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>  address   address   data      code       language
>  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [000019e3][00112ae8][00112aec] 55         push ebp      // begin D
> [000019e4][00112ae8][00112aec] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000019e6][00112ae4][00102ab8] 51         push ecx
> [000019e7][00112ae4][00102ab8] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000019ea][00112ae0][000019e3] 50         push eax      // push D
> [000019eb][00112ae0][000019e3] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000019ee][00112adc][000019e3] 51         push ecx      // push D
> [000019ef][00112ad8][000019f4] e88ff9ffff call 00001383 // call H
> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

So H has done a partial simulation which is correct for instructions at
000019E3 to 000019EE, and has not actually correctly simulated the
instruction as 000019EF.

A correct simulation of the instruction at 000019EF would either be
followed by a simulation of the instruction at 00001383, or by the
equivlent of such a call, which would be the returning of the value 0,
since it is shown that a call to H(D,D) will return 0.

Thus your claim (B) is incorrect.

>
> (C) You and I and H can see that D is about to call H again with its
> same arguments and you and I and H can see the there are no instructions
> from the beginning of D to its call to H that can possibly prevent this
> from repeating. This proves that the correctly simulated D cannot
> possibly reach its final state and terminate normally, thus is non-halting.

Which isn't a correct rule. You have failed to provide a reference for
this rule, so it is NOT admissible an you continued instance of
inserting it just shows that you are a LIAR and a CHEAT, and have failed
to understand the

>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT ALL OF MY REVIEWERS GET WRONG
> *When A&B&C entails X and A&B&C it true then X*
> *is entailed no matter what or who disagrees*

And since NONE of A, B or C are true, you haven't proven you X.

>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT ALL OF MY REVIEWERS GET WRONG
> *When A&B&C entails X and A&B&C it true then X*
> *is entailed no matter what or who disagrees*
>
> THIS IS THE PART THAT ALL OF MY REVIEWERS GET WRONG
> *When A&B&C entails X and A&B&C it true then X*
> *is entailed no matter what or who disagrees*
>
> A&B&C also meets the Sipser approved criteria: H correctly simulates its
> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted (This is a tautology)
>
>

Nope, The Sipser approved criteria means that H needs to prove that an
actual correct simulation of this exact input to H would need to show it
to be non-halting. It allows you to alter the exectution of THIS H to do
that, but not change the code of the input. Since you are physically
unable to do this due to your error in construction, you can't do it
that way.

You could introduce a H2 machine which is exactly the same as H except
it doesn't do the abort, and show that this machine wouldn't halt, but
the input D still needs to call the original H, not H2.

THAT is the meaning that Professor Sipser meant. Should I stop by and
ask him next time I'm on campus?

On 11/14/22 2:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
>>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
>>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong because
>>>>>> B, and F is wrong because G.
>>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but I'm
>>>>>> RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
>>>>>
>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>> the theory of computation) has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else):
>>>>>
>>>>>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>     D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
>>>>>     never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
>>>>>     simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>>>>     non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a correct
>>>> AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation of P
>>> by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things that you
>>> already agreed to?
>>>
>>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
>>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
>>>> show the result.
>>>>
>>>> You don't do that.
>>>
>>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
>>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
>>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
>>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
>>>
>>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
>>>
>>
>> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
>> non-halting.
>>
>> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that DOESN'T
>> HAPPEN.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> A partial simulation of:
>
> void f()
> {
> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> }
>
> is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
> repeated machine state.
>
> Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of non-halting
> in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY DEFINITION (a halt
> decider must always return a result in finite time).
>
> /Flibble
>

Right, and the partial simulation BY ITSELF doesn't prove that the
infinite loop is non-halting.

The partial simulation provides data that can be used, with a correct
proof, that does prove that the input in non-halting.

If the SHD can do this, it can correctly answer.

If it can't, then it is stuck.

Note, the proof for things lie your function f can be proved with a
simple inductive proof.

A proof that fails when tried to apply to D

On 11/14/22 2:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/14/2022 1:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
>>>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
>>>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong because
>>>>>>> B, and F is wrong because G.
>>>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but I'm
>>>>>>> RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>>> the theory of computation) has agreed that the following verbatim
>>>>>> paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything else):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>>      D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
>>>>>>      never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
>>>>>>      simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>>>>>      non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a correct
>>>>> AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never halt.
>>>>
>>>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation of P
>>>> by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things that you
>>>> already agreed to?
>>>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
>>>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
>>>>> show the result.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't do that.
>>>>
>>>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
>>>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
>>>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
>>>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
>>>
>>> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
>>> non-halting.
>>>
>>> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that DOESN'T
>>> HAPPEN.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> A partial simulation of:
>>
>> void f()
>> {
>>     infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
>> }
>>
>> is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
>> repeated machine state.
>>
>> Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of non-halting
>> in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY DEFINITION (a halt
>> decider must always return a result in finite time).
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> He knows that and doesn't care. He looks for every lame excuse to form
> any rebuttal that would at least convince gullible fools that are not
> paying enough attention to see that he is lying.
>
> Now the best rebuttal that Andre has is ad hominem thus confirming that
> I was right all along. Andre previously was pretty good at sticking to
> the actual facts.
>
> Now that he knows that there are no such facts that can be used for
> rebuttal he switches to ad hominem because that is all that is left
> besides simply admitted the truth that I was right all along.
>

Nope, you just don't understand that some things are just impossible.

Try to provide an algorithm that will ALWAYS WIN at tic tac toe.

It is a VALID question,

The answer is it is impossible.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:53:19 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/14/22 2:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
> >>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
> >>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
> >>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
> >>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
> >>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
> >>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
> >>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong because
> >>>>>> B, and F is wrong because G.
> >>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but I'm
> >>>>>> RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
> >>>>> the theory of computation) has agreed that the following
> >>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything
> >>>>> else):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
> >>>>>     D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
> >>>>>     never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
> >>>>>     simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
> >>>>>     non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a
> >>>> correct AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never halt.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation of
> >>> P by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things that you
> >>> already agreed to?
> >>>
> >>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
> >>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
> >>>> show the result.
> >>>>
> >>>> You don't do that.
> >>>
> >>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
> >>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
> >>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
> >>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
> >>>
> >>
> >> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
> >> non-halting.
> >>
> >> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that DOESN'T
> >> HAPPEN.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > A partial simulation of:
> >
> > void f()
> > {
> > infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> > }
> >
> > is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
> > repeated machine state.
> >
> > Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of
> > non-halting in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY
> > DEFINITION (a halt decider must always return a result in finite
> > time).
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Right, and the partial simulation BY ITSELF doesn't prove that the
> infinite loop is non-halting.

If the partial simulation is equivalent to a full simulation then, yes,
it does.

>
> The partial simulation provides data that can be used, with a correct
> proof, that does prove that the input in non-halting.

Sure it does if the simulation method is valid.

>
> If the SHD can do this, it can correctly answer.
>
> If it can't, then it is stuck.
>
> Note, the proof for things lie your function f can be proved with a
> simple inductive proof.
>
>
> A proof that fails when tried to apply to D

On 11/15/2022 11:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:53:19 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/22 2:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
>>>>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
>>>>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong because
>>>>>>>> B, and F is wrong because G.
>>>>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but I'm
>>>>>>>> RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>>>> the theory of computation) has agreed that the following
>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything
>>>>>>> else):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>>>     D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
>>>>>>>     never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
>>>>>>>     simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>>>>>>     non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a
>>>>>> correct AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation of
>>>>> P by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things that you
>>>>> already agreed to?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
>>>>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
>>>>>> show the result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
>>>>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
>>>>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
>>>>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
>>>> non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that DOESN'T
>>>> HAPPEN.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> A partial simulation of:
>>>
>>> void f()
>>> {
>>> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
>>> }
>>>
>>> is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
>>> repeated machine state.
>>>
>>> Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of
>>> non-halting in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY
>>> DEFINITION (a halt decider must always return a result in finite
>>> time).
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Right, and the partial simulation BY ITSELF doesn't prove that the
>> infinite loop is non-halting.
>
> If the partial simulation is equivalent to a full simulation then, yes,
> it does.
>

More precisely, when the partial simulation can be correctly
extrapolated to the behavior of the full simulation then the partial
simulation is predictive of the behavior of the full simulation.

H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.

The above criteria forms a tautology on the basis of the definition of a
universal Turing machine (UTM).

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/15/22 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/15/2022 11:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:53:19 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/14/22 2:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
>>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
>>>>>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
>>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
>>>>>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
>>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong because
>>>>>>>>> B, and F is wrong because G.
>>>>>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but I'm
>>>>>>>>> RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling book on
>>>>>>>> the theory of computation) has agreed that the following
>>>>>>>> verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed to anything
>>>>>>>> else):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
>>>>>>>>       D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
>>>>>>>>       never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
>>>>>>>>       simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>>>>>>>       non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a
>>>>>>> correct AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation of
>>>>>> P by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things that you
>>>>>> already agreed to?
>>>>>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
>>>>>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
>>>>>>> show the result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
>>>>>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
>>>>>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
>>>>>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that DOESN'T
>>>>> HAPPEN.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> A partial simulation of:
>>>>
>>>> void f()
>>>> {
>>>>     infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
>>>> repeated machine state.
>>>>
>>>> Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of
>>>> non-halting in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY
>>>> DEFINITION (a halt decider must always return a result in finite
>>>> time).
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> Right, and the partial simulation BY ITSELF doesn't prove that the
>>> infinite loop is non-halting.
>>
>> If the partial simulation is equivalent to a full simulation then, yes,
>> it does.
>>
>
> More precisely, when the partial simulation can be correctly
> extrapolated to the behavior of the full simulation then the partial
> simulation is predictive of the behavior of the full simulation.
>
>    H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
>    that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
>
> The above criteria forms a tautology on the basis of the definition of a
> universal Turing machine (UTM).
>

Right, *IF* it is correct, but since it isn't, as H presumes that H(D,D)
won't return, when it does, it gets the wrong answer.

We know that UTM(D,D) will behave JUST like D(D) and you have accepted
that D(D) halts (at least if H(D,D) returns 0) thus the CORRECT behavior
of a UTM simulation of the input is Halting, and thus the ONLY correct
behavior of simulating this input is Halting. (A Partial simulation
might only be able to determine not-halted-yet, but that is NOT
non-halting).

Thus the correct simulation by H can't be non-halting.

Thus, H aborting its simulation means that it HASN'T simulated until it
correctly determines that its simulated D wold never stop running.

Note, a major error in your analysis is that D needs to always call the
ORIGINAL H, the one that answers 0, even when you start to talk about
sets, which your currect program design doesn't do, and thus is
incorrect, and shows that you are incorrect in your claims that it is.

Either you are too ignorant to understand this, or are an inentional
liar trying to decieve, Eather way, you are wrong.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 20:04:47 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 11/15/22 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 11/15/2022 11:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:53:19 -0500
> >> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 11/14/22 2:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
> >>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
> >>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
> >>>>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
> >>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
> >>>>>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
> >>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
> >>>>>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
> >>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong
> >>>>>>>>> because B, and F is wrong because G.
> >>>>>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but
> >>>>>>>>> I'm RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling
> >>>>>>>> book on the theory of computation) has agreed that the
> >>>>>>>> following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed
> >>>>>>>> to anything else):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>       If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> >>>>>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
> >>>>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
> >>>>>>>>       simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
> >>>>>>>>       non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a
> >>>>>>> correct AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never
> >>>>>>> halt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation
> >>>>>> of P by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things
> >>>>>> that you already agreed to?
> >>>>>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
> >>>>>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
> >>>>>>> show the result.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don't do that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
> >>>>>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
> >>>>>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
> >>>>>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
> >>>>> non-halting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that
> >>>>> DOESN'T HAPPEN.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nonsense.
> >>>>
> >>>> A partial simulation of:
> >>>>
> >>>> void f()
> >>>> {
> >>>>     infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
> >>>> repeated machine state.
> >>>>
> >>>> Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of
> >>>> non-halting in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY
> >>>> DEFINITION (a halt decider must always return a result in finite
> >>>> time).
> >>>>
> >>>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>> Right, and the partial simulation BY ITSELF doesn't prove that the
> >>> infinite loop is non-halting.
> >>
> >> If the partial simulation is equivalent to a full simulation then,
> >> yes, it does.
> >>
> >
> > More precisely, when the partial simulation can be correctly
> > extrapolated to the behavior of the full simulation then the
> > partial simulation is predictive of the behavior of the full
> > simulation.
> >
> >    H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
> >    that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
> >
> > The above criteria forms a tautology on the basis of the definition
> > of a universal Turing machine (UTM).
> >
>
> Right, *IF* it is correct, but since it isn't, as H presumes that
> H(D,D) won't return, when it does, it gets the wrong answer.
>
> We know that UTM(D,D) will behave JUST like D(D) and you have
> accepted that D(D) halts (at least if H(D,D) returns 0) thus the
> CORRECT behavior of a UTM simulation of the input is Halting, and
> thus the ONLY correct behavior of simulating this input is Halting.
> (A Partial simulation might only be able to determine not-halted-yet,
> but that is NOT non-halting).
>
> Thus the correct simulation by H can't be non-halting.
>
> Thus, H aborting its simulation means that it HASN'T simulated until
> it correctly determines that its simulated D wold never stop running.
>
>
> Note, a major error in your analysis is that D needs to always call
> the ORIGINAL H, the one that answers 0, even when you start to talk
> about sets, which your currect program design doesn't do, and thus is
> incorrect, and shows that you are incorrect in your claims that it is.
>
> Either you are too ignorant to understand this, or are an inentional
> liar trying to decieve, Eather way, you are wrong.

No, you are too ignorant to understand this or you are an intentional
liar: the correct FULL simulation is infinite recursion so a halting
decision of NON-HALTING is arguably correct (although I think the
correct decision is INVALID-INPUT).

/Flibble

On 11/17/2022 11:14 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 20:04:47 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/22 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/15/2022 11:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 21:53:19 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/14/22 2:27 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 19:29:16 -0500
>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/22 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/22 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2022 4:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 5:25:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 16:08:18 -0600
>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon: no, you're wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, it's more like:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Damon: X is wrong because Y
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott: but X is right!  Also A.
>>>>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is wrong because B.
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott: (stomps feet) but A is right!!  Also F.
>>>>>>>>>>> Damon: X is still wrong because Y, and A is still wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> because B, and F is wrong because G.
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott: (throws self on floor, kicking and pounding):  but
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm RIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the mean time since your last visit:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser (author of the best selling
>>>>>>>>>> book on the theory of computation) has agreed that the
>>>>>>>>>> following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not agreed
>>>>>>>>>> to anything else):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>       If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
>>>>>>>>>>       simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>       non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And his definition of that is that you need to show that a
>>>>>>>>> correct AND COMPLETE simulation of THIS input would never
>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have already agreed that a correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>> of P by H never stops running. Why do you lie about things
>>>>>>>> that you already agreed to?
>>>>>>>>> Thus, you don't get to change the H that D calls, and need to
>>>>>>>>> correctly and completely simualate the D and the H it calls to
>>>>>>>>> show the result.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You already know that there is no need for the simulation to be
>>>>>>>> correct and complete. We (and H) can infer the behavior of the
>>>>>>>> correct and complete simulation of D by H on the basis of the
>>>>>>>> correct partial simulation of D by H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you insist on lying about this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A simulation that is not complete does not by itself prove
>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can H correctly predict the behavior of something that
>>>>>>> DOESN'T HAPPEN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A partial simulation of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void f()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is all that is required to detect the infinite loop by detecting
>>>>>> repeated machine state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again: the only way for a SHD to return a correct result of
>>>>>> non-halting in FINITE TIME is to do a PARTIAL simulation BY
>>>>>> DEFINITION (a halt decider must always return a result in finite
>>>>>> time).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and the partial simulation BY ITSELF doesn't prove that the
>>>>> infinite loop is non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> If the partial simulation is equivalent to a full simulation then,
>>>> yes, it does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More precisely, when the partial simulation can be correctly
>>> extrapolated to the behavior of the full simulation then the
>>> partial simulation is predictive of the behavior of the full
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>>    H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines
>>>    that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted.
>>>
>>> The above criteria forms a tautology on the basis of the definition
>>> of a universal Turing machine (UTM).
>>>
>>
>> Right, *IF* it is correct, but since it isn't, as H presumes that
>> H(D,D) won't return, when it does, it gets the wrong answer.
>>
>> We know that UTM(D,D) will behave JUST like D(D) and you have
>> accepted that D(D) halts (at least if H(D,D) returns 0) thus the
>> CORRECT behavior of a UTM simulation of the input is Halting, and
>> thus the ONLY correct behavior of simulating this input is Halting.
>> (A Partial simulation might only be able to determine not-halted-yet,
>> but that is NOT non-halting).
>>
>> Thus the correct simulation by H can't be non-halting.
>>
>> Thus, H aborting its simulation means that it HASN'T simulated until
>> it correctly determines that its simulated D wold never stop running.
>>
>>
>> Note, a major error in your analysis is that D needs to always call
>> the ORIGINAL H, the one that answers 0, even when you start to talk
>> about sets, which your currect program design doesn't do, and thus is
>> incorrect, and shows that you are incorrect in your claims that it is.
>>
>> Either you are too ignorant to understand this, or are an inentional
>> liar trying to decieve, Eather way, you are wrong.
>
> No, you are too ignorant to understand this or you are an intentional
> liar: the correct FULL simulation is infinite recursion so a halting
> decision of NON-HALTING is arguably correct (although I think the
> correct decision is INVALID-INPUT).
>
> /Flibble
>

*Halting and non-halting to a simulating halt decider*
*H correctly simulates its input D until D reaches its own*
*last instruction (final state) and terminates normally*

*H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines*
*that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*

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