On 1/26/23 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/26/2023 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/26/23 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2023 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/23 12:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/25/2023 10:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/25/23 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/25/2023 9:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/25/23 8:06 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Python <python@invalid.org> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> No machine can possibly be defined that divides all pairs of
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> strings into those that represent machines would halt on
>>>>>>>>>>>> their input
>>>>>>>>>>>> when directly executed and those that do not
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So at least you admit that there no program can be written that
>>>>>>>>>>> is an halt decider! It took time for you to abandon your
>>>>>>>>>>> delusions!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not so fast!  Remember that PO is often fractally wrong.  Not
>>>>>>>>>> only is he
>>>>>>>>>> usually wrong about the big picture he's usually wrong about
>>>>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>>>>> details too.  In this case, he's having trouble expressing
>>>>>>>>>> what he
>>>>>>>>>> means.  This is actually just another iteration of his "it's
>>>>>>>>>> an invalid
>>>>>>>>>> question" stance, badly phrased.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Meaning some times he just admits he is wrong because he fails to
>>>>>>>>> fashion a good enough lie and slips up and tells the truth that he
>>>>>>>>> doesn't beleive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not quite.  Python cut off the end of the sentence.  The
>>>>>>>> "...because"
>>>>>>>> text is what shows it's the same old "some instances have no
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> answer" in new clothing.  PO almost certainly does not stand by
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> Python quoted without the because clause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is the case that ZFC did eliminate Russell's Paradox by
>>>>>>> eliminating
>>>>>>> its basis of a set containing itself. Under the original
>>>>>>> definition of
>>>>>>> the problem within naive set theory Russell's Paradox still exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not by just defining that sets can't contain themselves, but by
>>>>>> limiting the kind of things that sets can contain.
>>>>>
>>>>> That a set cannot contain itself is what eliminates Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem proof begins with the correct basis that
>>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>>> pairs of finite strings either represent a computation that halts
>>>>>>> on its
>>>>>>> input or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The proof that no machine can correctly determine this set is
>>>>>>> analogous
>>>>>>> to the Liar Paradox in that the input is specifically defined to
>>>>>>> do the
>>>>>>> opposite of whatever the halt decider determines. This transforms
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> halting problem into an ill-formed problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Since the input is part of the domain of machine/inputs, the
>>>>>
>>>>> When we define a machine that correctly determines whether or not
>>>>> pairs
>>>>> of arbitrary finite sting inputs would reach the final state of the
>>>>> first element of this input then halting is computable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you need to show that you CAN do that. YOu haven't
>>>>
>>>> H(P,P) says that P(P) will not halt when it does, so it fails.
>>>>
>>>>> Because the pathological input actually has different behavior when it
>>>>> is correctly simulated by its corresponding halt decider and the halt
>>>>> decider must base its halt status decision on the actual behavior of
>>>>> this input then the halt decider is necessarily correct to reject its
>>>>> pathological input as non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't
>>>>
>>>> You have been asked to point what point in the actual execution of
>>>> H(P,P) called by P(P) call by main differs from the execution of
>>>> H(P,P) calledd by main diverege.
>>>>
>>>> You have failed to point that out, becaue it doesn't exist, because
>>>> you ar a  LIAR and an IDOIT.
>>>>
>>>> As stated before, your failure to even attempt to indicate this is
>>>> taken as your admission that your claim is a LIE, and you can not
>>>> actually prove your claim, also making you a damned hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You still have not provided any counter example that shows that my
>>>>> definition of correct simulation is incorrect:
>>>>
>>>> LIE.
>>>>
>>>> P(P) is the counter example.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try and provide a 100% specific counter-example where you show a line
>>>>> of machine code such as [mov eax, 1] and the simulator simulates
>>>>> another
>>>>> different line instead such as [push ebx] and the simulator is
>>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>> P(P), its call H will go through the exact same set of states when
>>>> P(P) call s as when main calls it, thus since H(P,P) returns 0 when
>>>> called by main, we know it does the same thing when called by P (or
>>>> it just fails to be the "pure function"/computation you have claimex
>>>> it to be)
>>>>
>>>> Since H simulats that call the H(P,P) as something that will never
>>>> returm, H has done an incorrect simulation.
>>>>
>>>> Your inability to understand this just shows your STUPIDITY.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If no such counter-example exists then it is proven that the ultimate
>>>>> measure of correct simulation is that the simulator simulates line-by-
>>>>> line exactly what the machine code specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST MY POSITION HAVE PROVEN TO BE
>>>>> COUNTER-FACTUAL
>>>>
>>>> Nope, YOUR statements, have been shown to be "counter-factual" and
>>>> your reasoning ab
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) The simulation of the input to H(D,D) by H is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, because it says H(P,P) will never return, when it doesn.
>>>
>>> Try and provide a 100% specific counter-example where you show a line
>>> of machine code such as [mov eax, 1] and the simulator simulates another
>>> different line instead such as [push ebx] and the simulator is correct.
>>
>> call H
>>
>> in actuality, it goes into H which will eventually returns.
>>
>> H "simulates" that as something that doesn't return, and doesn't
>> actually simulate into the function.
>>
>> Remeber, "Correct Simulation" means fully determining the behavior of
>> the machine, and BY DEFINITION if the machine halts and the simulation
>> says it doesn't, the simulation is INCORRECT.
>>
>>>
>>> If no such counter-example exists then it is proven that the ultimate
>>> measure of correct simulation is that the simulator simulates line-by-
>>> line exactly what the machine code specifies.
>>>
>>> Because your main tactic of rebuttal is the dishonest dodge I will stay
>>> focused on the point until you meet the challenge.
>>>
>>
>> I have, multiple times, but you are too stup[id to undrstand.
>>
>
> Show me a specific line of machine code such as [mov eax, 1] where the
> simulator simulates some other entirely different specific line of
> machine code instead such as [push ebx] *AND THE SIMULATOR IS CORRECT*

????

Why are you asking me to show that the simulator was correct????

>
> If this is impossible then my standard of correct simulation is proven
> to be correct.
>

Your brain is just fucked.

The simulation id WRONG, not "correct"