On 3/6/2023 4:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:29:52 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) 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
>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
>>>>
>>>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
>>>>
>>> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
>>> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
>>>
>>> Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
>>> is spoken exactly correctly?
>>>
>> It took me three full time years to boil the entire essence of my whole
>> proof down to these concise and precise words:
>> (a) 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 (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> (a)
>>
> You mean (a) without the "If" and "then"

*These two are essentially equivalent*
If Socrates was a man then Socrates was a human.
Since Socrates was a man therefore Socrates was a human.

The first one is like sound deductive inference that requires its
premise be true before deducing its conclusion.

If the Moon is made from green cheese then the Moon is made from cheese.

>>
>> (a) proves (b)
>> -------------
>> ∴ H(D,D)==0 is correct
>> --
>> Copyright 2023 Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:16:50 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 4:10 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:36:24 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (a) 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
> >>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> >>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
> >>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
> >>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
> >>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
> >>>>
> >>>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
> >>>>
> >>> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
> >>> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
> >>>
> >>> Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
> >>> is spoken exactly correctly?
> >>>
> >>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
> >>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
> >>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
> >>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>> configurations.
> >>>
> >> *It took me three full time years to get those words exactly right*
> >>
> >> (1) Do you understand that (a) proves (b) is a tautology?
> >>
> > I do not. IMO (b) is not meaningful because "can" is never defined in
> > a context where "tautology" has any meaning.
> >>
> >> (2) Do you understand that criteria (a) is met by H(D,D)? (see below)
> >>
> > I do not. "Function" H is nowhere defined.
> >>
> *Here is another way of looking at it*
> Because it is an easily verified fact that D(D) would never stop running
> unless H aborts its simulation of D, H is necessarily correct to return
> 0 indicating this verified fact.
>
This is a verbose version of:
>
H return[s] 0 because D(D) would never stop running unless H aborts its simulation of D.
>
Which might be true if D and H were defined.

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:31:44 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> *These two are essentially equivalent*
> If Socrates was a man then Socrates was a human.
> Since Socrates was a man therefore Socrates was a human.
>
Two alternative ways to encode formal logic in natural language.
>
> The first one is like sound deductive inference that requires its
> premise be true before deducing its conclusion.
>
But my comment still holds.

On 3/6/2023 4:35 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:16:50 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2023 4:10 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:36:24 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) 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
>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
>>>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
>>>>> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
>>>>> is spoken exactly correctly?
>>>>>
>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>
>>>> *It took me three full time years to get those words exactly right*
>>>>
>>>> (1) Do you understand that (a) proves (b) is a tautology?
>>>>
>>> I do not. IMO (b) is not meaningful because "can" is never defined in
>>> a context where "tautology" has any meaning.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Do you understand that criteria (a) is met by H(D,D)? (see below)
>>>>
>>> I do not. "Function" H is nowhere defined.
>>>>
>> *Here is another way of looking at it*
>> Because it is an easily verified fact that D(D) would never stop running
>> unless H aborts its simulation of D, H is necessarily correct to return
>> 0 indicating this verified fact.
>>
> This is a verbose version of:
>>
> H return[s] 0 because D(D) would never stop running unless H aborts its simulation of D.
>>
> Which might be true if D and H were defined.

H and D are defined in Halt7.c
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/2023 4:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:31:44 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> *These two are essentially equivalent*
>> If Socrates was a man then Socrates was a human.
>> Since Socrates was a man therefore Socrates was a human.
>>
> Two alternative ways to encode formal logic in natural language.
>>
>> The first one is like sound deductive inference that requires its
>> premise be true before deducing its conclusion.
>>
> But my comment still holds.

What comment?
When you erase the context I can't tell what you are talking about.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
>>>>
>>>> (a) 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
>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>> configurations.
>>>
>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
>>
>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
>>
> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
>
> Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
> is spoken exactly correctly?
>
> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> configurations.

My reviewers use any possible excuse to form a rebuttal and Richard even
uses impossible excuses. Richard disagrees with obviously correct
software engineering and only finally relented when I pointed out that
he had already agreed with what he was disagreeing with:

That D(D) would never stop running unless aborted is proven by the fact
that when H is a pure simulator then P(P) never stops running.

I have been through this many thousands of times and before I inserted
the word [CORRECTLY] people would endlessly talk in circles that the
simulation must be somehow incorrect. This single issue wasted six
months of my time.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/6/23 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 4:35 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:16:50 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2023 4:10 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:36:24 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) 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
>>>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates
>>>>>>>> its input D
>>>>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D
>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its
>>>>>>>> simulation of D
>>>>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
>>>>>> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
>>>>>> is spoken exactly correctly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its
>>>>>> input D
>>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation
>>>>>> of D
>>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *It took me three full time years to get those words exactly right*
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Do you understand that (a) proves (b) is a tautology?
>>>>>
>>>> I do not. IMO (b) is not meaningful because "can" is never defined in
>>>> a context where "tautology" has any meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) Do you understand that criteria (a) is met by H(D,D)? (see below)
>>>>>
>>>> I do not. "Function" H is nowhere defined.
>>>>>
>>> *Here is another way of looking at it*
>>> Because it is an easily verified fact that D(D) would never stop running
>>> unless H aborts its simulation of D, H is necessarily correct to return
>>> 0 indicating this verified fact.
>>>
>> This is a verbose version of:
>>>
>> H return[s] 0 because D(D) would never stop running unless H aborts
>> its simulation of D.
>>>
>> Which might be true if D and H were defined.
>
> H and D are defined in Halt7.c
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>

But that H DOES abort its simulation, so "if it never aborts" isn't a
factual statement.

So, your logic is based on a LIE.

On 3/6/23 5:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 4:23 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 8:29:52 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) 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
>>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its
>>>>>> input D
>>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation
>>>>>> of D
>>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
>>>>>
>>>>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
>>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
>>>> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
>>>>
>>>> Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
>>>> is spoken exactly correctly?
>>>>
>>> It took me three full time years to boil the entire essence of my whole
>>> proof down to these concise and precise words:
>>> (a) 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 (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> (a)
>>>
>> You mean (a) without the "If" and "then"
>
> *These two are essentially equivalent*
> If Socrates was a man then Socrates was a human.
> Since Socrates was a man therefore Socrates was a human.
>
> The first one is like sound deductive inference that requires its
> premise be true before deducing its conclusion.
>
> If the Moon is made from green cheese then the Moon is made from cheese.
>
>

So, "If H doesn't abort its simulation requires H to NOT abort its
simulation to be usable.

>>>
>>> (a) proves (b)
>>> -------------
>>> ∴ H(D,D)==0 is correct
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2023 Olcott
>>>
>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>

On 3/6/23 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 4:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:31:44 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>> *These two are essentially equivalent*
>>> If Socrates was a man then Socrates was a human.
>>> Since Socrates was a man therefore Socrates was a human.
>>>
>> Two alternative ways to encode formal logic in natural language.
>>>
>>> The first one is like sound deductive inference that requires its
>>> premise be true before deducing its conclusion.
>>>
>> But my comment still holds.
>
> What comment?
> When you erase the context I can't tell what you are talking about.
>

No worse than YOU who answwers some message without replying to the
message you seem to be replying to.

Showing you don't actually have a reply to them.

On 3/6/23 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) 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
>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its
>>>> input D
>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would
>>>> never
>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>> configurations.
>>>>
>>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
>>>
>>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
>>>
>> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
>> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
>>
> It took me three full time years to boil the entire essence of my whole
> proof down to these concise and precise words:
>
> (a) 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 (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> (a)
> (a) proves (b)
> -------------
> ∴ H(D,D)==0 is correct
>
> If you pay very close attention you will see that every single rebuttal
> that Richard provides is entirely based on changing those exact words
> and then forming a rebuttal to these changed words.
>
> *This is known as the strawman deception*
>
> *straw man*
> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
> easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
>
> This kind of cheap trick certainly convinces gullible fools.
>

No, trying to replace the DEFINITION of Halting which is to look at the
ACTUAL behavior of the ACTUAL machine described by the input with a
simulation of that input that indicates a resullt different than that
actual execution behavior.

Your calling bringing up the actual definition of Halting just PROVES
that you are lying about working on the actual Halting Problem of
Computability Theory.

On 3/6/23 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:

> My lack of answer means that I have stopped reading replies.
>

Which since you mention them says you are LYING.

The fact that you ignore them just proves you are ignorant and don't
undertstand how to answer them

On 3/6/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2023 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2023 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2023 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2023 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 10:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-02 19:34:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Sipser_D(int (*M)())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int DoesHalt = H(M, M); // *Rejects when Sipser_D fails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accept*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (DoesHalt)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that program does not return then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Sipser_D(Sipser_D) returns 1 then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    H(Sipser_D, Sipser_D);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since everyone knows that it is incorrect for any function
>>>>>>>>>>>> called in
>>>>>>>>>>>> what is essentially infinite recursion to return to its
>>>>>>>>>>>> caller your
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement of incorrect behavior is an incorrect requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Sipser_D(Sipser_D) would never stop running unless H
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts its
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of Sipser_D, this conclusively proves that H
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> determines:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     “from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>>>>>>>>>>>> an input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>      whether the program will finish running, or continue to
>>>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>>>      forever”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Would never stop running" is a correct definition of
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Would never stop running unless aborted" is a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> criteria for a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider that must abort its simulation of non-
>>>>>>>>>>> terminating inputs so that it can report that they would not
>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Requirements can be incorrect when they require any analytical
>>>>>>>>>> impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an abuse of language to say that any system is
>>>>>>>>> "incomplete" on the
>>>>>>>>> basis that it cannot perform an analytical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be equally correct to call such a system "spoiled
>>>>>>>>> raspberry
>>>>>>>>> shortcake".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Incomplete" must mean that {something is missing} or it is an
>>>>>>>>> abuse of
>>>>>>>>> terminology that greatly hinders maximum effective communication.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A proof must connect an expression x of language L to its
>>>>>>>> premises in L
>>>>>>>> using only truth preserving operations or this "proof" diverges
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> correct reasoning. VALID DEDUCTION CORRECTED
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(L, x) applies only truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>>> expression x of
>>>>>>>> language L to connect x to expressions of L that are stipulated
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> true. SOUND DEDUCTION CORRECTED
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within the above self-evidently correct definitions x cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly be
>>>>>>>> true in L and unprovable in L.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>> The principle of explosion is one example where modern logic
>>>>>>> diverges
>>>>>>> from correct reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Within correct reasoning*
>>>>>> Expression x is proven from premises y iff there is a semantic
>>>>>> connection from x to y using only truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Moon is made from green cheese proves that the Moon is made from
>>>>>> cheese. It has a false premise yet the conclusion is correctly
>>>>>> derived
>>>>>> on the basis of this false premise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Principle of explosion says that the Moon is made from green
>>>>>> cheese
>>>>>> is proved from FALSE. There are no truth preserving operations
>>>>>> that can
>>>>>> be applied to FALSE to derive {the Moon is made from green cheese}.
>>>>>
>>>>> Implies must be discarded because it makes the same mistake as the
>>>>> current definition of valid inference if the premise if false and the
>>>>> conclusion is false then the premise proves the conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> *In correct reasoning*
>>>>> A proves B means that B is a semantically necessary consequence of A.
>>>>> If the Moon is made from green cheese then the Moon is made from
>>>>> cheese.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not true that FALSE proves that the Moon is made from green
>>>>> cheese
>>>>> therefore the principle of explosion is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> We have to go one point at a time.
>>>>
>>>> The principle of explosion says that FALSE proves anything therefore it
>>>> proves that the Moon is made from green cheese. This is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems,
>>> the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet,
>>> 'from falsehood, anything [follows]';
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>
>>
>> *In correct reasoning*
>> A proves B means that B is a semantically necessary consequence of A.
>> If the Moon is made from green cheese then the Moon is made from cheese.
>>
>> Every other aspect of logic that derives the POE must be abolished by
>> the above A proves B principle otherwise reasoning is incorrect.
>
> A semantically necessary consequence is at least partially addressed by
> relevance logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>
> It is also addressed by categorical syllogisms
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism that are anchored in defined sets.
>

On 3/6/23 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:

> A semantically necessary consequence is at least partially addressed by
> relevance logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>
> It is also addressed by categorical syllogisms
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism that are anchored in defined sets.
>

So you are admitting that your logic system can only handle the simpler
problems put to logic.

On 3/6/2023 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2023 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2023 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2023 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2023 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2023 10:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-02 19:34:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Sipser_D(int (*M)())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int DoesHalt = H(M, M); // *Rejects when Sipser_D fails
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to accept*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (DoesHalt)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that program does not return then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Sipser_D(Sipser_D) returns 1 then H is not a halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    H(Sipser_D, Sipser_D);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since everyone knows that it is incorrect for any function
>>>>>>>>>>>> called in
>>>>>>>>>>>> what is essentially infinite recursion to return to its
>>>>>>>>>>>> caller your
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement of incorrect behavior is an incorrect requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Sipser_D(Sipser_D) would never stop running unless H
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts its
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of Sipser_D, this conclusively proves that H
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> determines:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     “from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
>>>>>>>>>>>> an input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>      whether the program will finish running, or continue to
>>>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>>>      forever”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Would never stop running" is a correct definition of
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Would never stop running unless aborted" is a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> criteria for a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider that must abort its simulation of non-
>>>>>>>>>>> terminating inputs so that it can report that they would not
>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Requirements can be incorrect when they require any analytical
>>>>>>>>>> impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is an abuse of language to say that any system is
>>>>>>>>> "incomplete" on the
>>>>>>>>> basis that it cannot perform an analytical impossibility.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be equally correct to call such a system "spoiled
>>>>>>>>> raspberry
>>>>>>>>> shortcake".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Incomplete" must mean that {something is missing} or it is an
>>>>>>>>> abuse of
>>>>>>>>> terminology that greatly hinders maximum effective communication.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A proof must connect an expression x of language L to its
>>>>>>>> premises in L
>>>>>>>> using only truth preserving operations or this "proof" diverges
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> correct reasoning. VALID DEDUCTION CORRECTED
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True(L, x) applies only truth preserving operations to
>>>>>>>> expression x of
>>>>>>>> language L to connect x to expressions of L that are stipulated
>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>> true. SOUND DEDUCTION CORRECTED
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Within the above self-evidently correct definitions x cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly be
>>>>>>>> true in L and unprovable in L.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>> The principle of explosion is one example where modern logic
>>>>>>> diverges
>>>>>>> from correct reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Within correct reasoning*
>>>>>> Expression x is proven from premises y iff there is a semantic
>>>>>> connection from x to y using only truth preserving operations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Moon is made from green cheese proves that the Moon is made from
>>>>>> cheese. It has a false premise yet the conclusion is correctly
>>>>>> derived
>>>>>> on the basis of this false premise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Principle of explosion says that the Moon is made from green
>>>>>> cheese
>>>>>> is proved from FALSE. There are no truth preserving operations
>>>>>> that can
>>>>>> be applied to FALSE to derive {the Moon is made from green cheese}.
>>>>>
>>>>> Implies must be discarded because it makes the same mistake as the
>>>>> current definition of valid inference if the premise if false and the
>>>>> conclusion is false then the premise proves the conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> *In correct reasoning*
>>>>> A proves B means that B is a semantically necessary consequence of A.
>>>>> If the Moon is made from green cheese then the Moon is made from
>>>>> cheese.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not true that FALSE proves that the Moon is made from green
>>>>> cheese
>>>>> therefore the principle of explosion is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> We have to go one point at a time.
>>>>
>>>> The principle of explosion says that FALSE proves anything therefore it
>>>> proves that the Moon is made from green cheese. This is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems,
>>> the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet,
>>> 'from falsehood, anything [follows]';
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>
>>
>> *In correct reasoning*
>> A proves B means that B is a semantically necessary consequence of A.
>> If the Moon is made from green cheese then the Moon is made from cheese.
>>
>> Every other aspect of logic that derives the POE must be abolished by
>> the above A proves B principle otherwise reasoning is incorrect.
>
> A semantically necessary consequence is at least partially addressed by
> relevance logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>
> It is also addressed by categorical syllogisms
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism that are anchored in defined sets.
>

On 3/6/23 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:

>
> Everything known to mankind can be encoded in a knowledge ontology so
> that computer programs can access this knowledge tree and derive a human
> level of understanding of any knowledge properly encoded.
>
> This is the same general idea as model theory.
>
>

So?

Doesn't mean your logic you have defined can process it.

Also, it can't give an answer that doesn't exist.

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 4:35 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:16:50 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
> >>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
> >>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
> >>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>
> >>>> *It took me three full time years to get those words exactly right*
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) Do you understand that (a) proves (b) is a tautology?
> >>>>
> >>> I do not. IMO (b) is not meaningful because "can" is never defined in
> >>> a context where "tautology" has any meaning.
> >>>>
> >>>> (2) Do you understand that criteria (a) is met by H(D,D)? (see below)
> >>>>
> >>> I do not. "Function" H is nowhere defined.
> >>>>
> >> *Here is another way of looking at it*
> >> Because it is an easily verified fact that D(D) would never stop running
> >> unless H aborts its simulation of D, H is necessarily correct to return
> >> 0 indicating this verified fact.
> >>
> > This is a verbose version of:
> >>
> > H return[s] 0 because D(D) would never stop running unless H aborts its simulation of D.
> >>
> > Which might be true if D and H were defined.
>
> H and D are defined in Halt7.c
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>
Then you need to say so in your proposition. If you don't specify a context the context defaults to the overt context.

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 5:14:06 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
> >>>>
> >>>> (a) 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
> >>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>
> >>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
> >>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
> >>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
> >>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>> configurations.
> >>>
> >>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
> >>
> >> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
> >>
> > I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
> > added a little punctuation to show what I did.
> >
> > Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
> > is spoken exactly correctly?
> >
> > That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
> > until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
> > stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
> > and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> > configurations.
> My reviewers use any possible excuse to form a rebuttal and Richard even
> uses impossible excuses. Richard disagrees with obviously correct
> software engineering and only finally relented when I pointed out that
> he had already agreed with what he was disagreeing with:
>
> That D(D) would never stop running unless aborted is proven by the fact
> that when H is a pure simulator then P(P) never stops running.
>
> I have been through this many thousands of times and before I inserted
> the word [CORRECTLY] people would endlessly talk in circles that the
> simulation must be somehow incorrect. This single issue wasted six
> months of my time.
>
But that does not explain why an exact quotation is required.

On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 6:31:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2023 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> > On 3/4/2023 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> >
> > A semantically necessary consequence is at least partially addressed by
> > relevance logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
> >
> > It is also addressed by categorical syllogisms
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism that are anchored in defined sets.
> >
> Everything known to mankind can be encoded in a knowledge ontology so
> that computer programs can access this knowledge tree and derive a human
> level of understanding of any knowledge properly encoded.
>
We have argued this before. Your dream of a universal ontology is a fantasy..

On 3/7/2023 12:51 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 6:31:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2023 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2023 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> A semantically necessary consequence is at least partially addressed by
>>> relevance logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
>>>
>>> It is also addressed by categorical syllogisms
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism that are anchored in defined sets.
>>>
>> Everything known to mankind can be encoded in a knowledge ontology so
>> that computer programs can access this knowledge tree and derive a human
>> level of understanding of any knowledge properly encoded.
>>
> We have argued this before. Your dream of a universal ontology is a fantasy.

It is not a fantasy at all if it can be autopopulated with ChatGPT.
The CYC project has at least 700 labor years encoding common sense.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/7/2023 12:42 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 5:14:06 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/4/2023 7:40 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 4:53:20 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2023 6:41 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 8:37:20 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That (a) proves (b) has always been a tautology*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) 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
>>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> This a true statement and I have said so repeatedly
>>>>
>>>> *It must be word for word exactly the same words that I said*
>>>>
>>> I'm sorry I spoiled the incantation. I have corrected my mistake (and
>>> added a little punctuation to show what I did.
>>>
>>> Is it that the magic of your genius only shows itself when the spell
>>> is spoken exactly correctly?
>>>
>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>> configurations.
>> My reviewers use any possible excuse to form a rebuttal and Richard even
>> uses impossible excuses. Richard disagrees with obviously correct
>> software engineering and only finally relented when I pointed out that
>> he had already agreed with what he was disagreeing with:
>>
>> That D(D) would never stop running unless aborted is proven by the fact
>> that when H is a pure simulator then P(P) never stops running.
>>
>> I have been through this many thousands of times and before I inserted
>> the word [CORRECTLY] people would endlessly talk in circles that the
>> simulation must be somehow incorrect. This single issue wasted six
>> months of my time.
>>
> But that does not explain why an exact quotation is required.

It is tried and true. It took me three years to make it tried and true.
It has zero loopholes.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/7/2023 12:30 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2023 4:35 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:16:50 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D would never
>>>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its simulation of D
>>>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *It took me three full time years to get those words exactly right*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Do you understand that (a) proves (b) is a tautology?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I do not. IMO (b) is not meaningful because "can" is never defined in
>>>>> a context where "tautology" has any meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2) Do you understand that criteria (a) is met by H(D,D)? (see below)
>>>>>>
>>>>> I do not. "Function" H is nowhere defined.
>>>>>>
>>>> *Here is another way of looking at it*
>>>> Because it is an easily verified fact that D(D) would never stop running
>>>> unless H aborts its simulation of D, H is necessarily correct to return
>>>> 0 indicating this verified fact.
>>>>
>>> This is a verbose version of:
>>>>
>>> H return[s] 0 because D(D) would never stop running unless H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>>
>>> Which might be true if D and H were defined.
>>
>> H and D are defined in Halt7.c
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>
> Then you need to say so in your proposition. If you don't specify a context the context defaults to the overt context.

All that anyone needs to know about H is that is simulates its input
with an x86 emulator.

A simulating halt decider (SHD) correctly predicts what the behavior of
its input would be if it never aborted the simulation of this input. It
does this by correctly recognizing several non-halting behavior patterns
in a finite number of steps of correct simulation. It must abort the
simulation of all non-terminating inputs so that it can report that they
are non-halting. Inputs that do terminate are simply simulated until
they complete.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2023-03-06 15:13:32 +0000, olcott said:

> On 3/6/2023 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-03-04 16:26:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> *Here is the corrected truth table for: PROVES*
>>>   p  q  p ⊢ q
>>>   T  T    T
>>>   T  F    F
>>>   F  T    F
>>>   F  F    F
>>
>> So in your system "Water is wet" proves that "Gold is yellow".
>
> The part that you erased proves otherwise.

No, it doesn't. The truthtable is a complete definition of "⊢".
What is said elsewhere does not alter the definition.

Mikko

On 3/7/23 2:33 AM, olcott wrote:

> It is tried and true. It took me three years to make it tried and true.
> It has zero loopholes.
>
>

Except that it isn't tried and true, since it isn't TRUE by the
definition of Halting in Computability Theory.

You need such a precise statement to hide the fact that it is just a
strawman, and variation and the straw just pops out.

On 3/7/23 2:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2023 12:30 AM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:53 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2023 4:35 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:16:50 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> That is (a) If simulating halt decider H [correctly simulates
>>>>>>>> its input D
>>>>>>>> until H correctly] determines that its [simulated] /input/ D
>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>> stop [running unless aborted then] (b) H can abort its
>>>>>>>> simulation of D
>>>>>>>> and [correctly] report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *It took me three full time years to get those words exactly right*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (1) Do you understand that (a) proves (b) is a tautology?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not. IMO (b) is not meaningful because "can" is never defined in
>>>>>> a context where "tautology" has any meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (2) Do you understand that criteria (a) is met by H(D,D)? (see
>>>>>>> below)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not. "Function" H is nowhere defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> *Here is another way of looking at it*
>>>>> Because it is an easily verified fact that D(D) would never stop
>>>>> running
>>>>> unless H aborts its simulation of D, H is necessarily correct to
>>>>> return
>>>>> 0 indicating this verified fact.
>>>>>
>>>> This is a verbose version of:
>>>>>
>>>> H return[s] 0 because D(D) would never stop running unless H aborts
>>>> its simulation of D.
>>>>>
>>>> Which might be true if D and H were defined.
>>>
>>> H and D are defined in Halt7.c
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>> Then you need to say so in your proposition.  If you don't specify a
>> context the context defaults to the overt context.
>
>
> All that anyone needs to know about H is that is simulates its input
> with an x86 emulator.
>
> A simulating halt decider (SHD) correctly predicts what the behavior of
> its input would be if it never aborted the simulation of this input. It
> does this by correctly recognizing several non-halting behavior patterns
> in a finite number of steps of correct simulation. It must abort the
> simulation of all non-terminating inputs so that it can report that they
> are non-halting. Inputs that do terminate are simply simulated until
> they complete.
>
>

Nope, and that PROVES that you don't understand what you are saying.

Your H presumes that the input H actually does what it is supposed to,
when H itself doesn't. The fact that an H that fully meets your
specification CAN NOT EXIST means it is working from a false premise.

Your H might reason corectly for some input, but because it only has
"several" non-halting behavior patterns, and not an exhustive list
(which you can't, as it is infinte) means you design can't catch all
non-halting machines.

The fact that you try to put in a pattern that is INCORRECT says it gets
false positives and calls some machihes non-halting as halting.

This is clear as D(D) Halts when run, thus there can not be a correct
"non-halting" pattern in its simulation, but your H somehow detects one.

Thus, your design is proved to be in error.

On 3/7/2023 5:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2023-03-06 15:13:32 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 3/6/2023 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2023-03-04 16:26:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> *Here is the corrected truth table for: PROVES*
>>>>   p  q  p ⊢ q
>>>>   T  T    T
>>>>   T  F    F
>>>>   F  T    F
>>>>   F  F    F
>>>
>>> So in your system "Water is wet" proves that "Gold is yellow".
>>
>> The part that you erased proves otherwise.
>
> No, it doesn't. The truthtable is a complete definition of "⊢".
> What is said elsewhere does not alter the definition.
>
> Mikko
>

*Here is the part that you erased*

*In correct reasoning*
A proves B means that B is a semantically necessary consequence of A.

Within that definition only line one of the truth table can be true.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer