On 6/16/2022 2:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
>> Given olcott's code,
>>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>
>> void P(ptr x)
>> {
>> if (H(x, x))
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
>> }
>>
>> and olcott's assertion that H is a pure function and H(P,P) == 0,
>> then, P should halt as H should also return 0 to P
>
> You mean P(P) should halt, and it does. PO does not dispute this fact.
> Not only has he posted a trace of P(P) halting, he has clearly stated
> that H(P,P) == 0 "is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".[1]
>
>> (pure functions
>> ALWAYS return the same result for the same arguments with no side
>> effects). P doesn't halt so H is erroneous; olcott, it's really that
>> simple.
>
> Except that he is now just asserting that H(P,P) == 0 is correct about
> something else (the "correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)") and the
> mistakes in that irrelevant statement are keeping him supplied with the
> attention he craves. You might consider not giving him what he wants.
>
> [1] Message-ID: <c8idnbFAF6C8QuP8nZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com>
>

When a simulating halt decider rejects all inputs as non-halting
whenever it correctly detects that its correct and complete simulation
of its input would never reach the final state of this input that all
inputs (including pathological inputs) are decided correctly.

*computation that halts* … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)

--
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 6/16/22 3:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2022 2:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>
>>> Given olcott's code,
>>>
>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>
>>> void P(ptr x)
>>> {
>>>     if (H(x, x))
>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>     return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
>>> }
>>>
>>> and olcott's assertion that H is a pure function and H(P,P) == 0,
>>> then, P should halt as H should also return 0 to P
>>
>> You mean P(P) should halt, and it does.  PO does not dispute this fact.
>> Not only has he posted a trace of P(P) halting, he has clearly stated
>> that H(P,P) == 0 "is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".[1]
>>
>>> (pure functions
>>> ALWAYS return the same result for the same arguments with no side
>>> effects). P doesn't halt so H is erroneous; olcott, it's really that
>>> simple.
>>
>> Except that he is now just asserting that H(P,P) == 0 is correct about
>> something else (the "correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)") and the
>> mistakes in that irrelevant statement are keeping him supplied with the
>> attention he craves.  You might consider not giving him what he wants.
>>
>> [1] Message-ID: <c8idnbFAF6C8QuP8nZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>
>
> When a simulating halt decider rejects all inputs as non-halting
> whenever it correctly detects that its correct and complete simulation
> of its input would never reach the final state of this input that all
> inputs (including pathological inputs) are decided correctly.
>
> *computation that halts* … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>
> Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
> Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)
>
>
>

It needs to be CORRECT in its detection, and it isn't if "its" correct
and complete simulation of its input would never reach the final state
unless it actually DOES that.

If H DOES a complete emulation of its input P, then it never answers and
fails.

If H DOES abort its emulation, it doesn't actually do a complete and
correct emulation, so your definition isn't applicable, and when we look
at the ACTUAL complete and correct emulation, we see it halts, so H was
wrong.

Note, you quoteing Linz on a computation that Halts actually shows that
your criterion is incorrect, as it never references a "simultion" or
"emulation" of the machine, but the machine it self, thus, since even
you agree that P(P) will halt if H(P,P) returns 0, Linz definition says
P(P) is a Halting computaiton in that case, so H(P,P) returning 0 is
incorrect for something actually claiming to be a Halting Decider.