On 1/27/2023 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/27/23 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> No, I have repeatedly TOLD you the error, H presumes the wrong behavior
> for a call to H.
>

When D calls H this is D calling H.
If H did not abort its simulation of D then D would never stop running.

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