On 1/26/2023 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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????
>

You have repeatedly claimed that the simulation of D by H is incorrect
yet cannot point our a single line of code that was simulated incorrectly.

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