On 8/6/2021 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/6/21 10:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/6/2021 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/6/21 6:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2021 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/5/21 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/5/21 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't refuse to respond to rebuttals. I refuse to respond to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also refuse to respond to dishonest dodges, changing the
>>>>>>>> subject to
>>>>>>>> avoid addressing the point at hand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As soon as I prove my point people change the subject.
>>>>>>>> It is counter-productive for me to tolerate this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>      if (H(x, x))
>>>>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It took fifty exchanges for you to pay enough attention to
>>>>>>>> acknowledge
>>>>>>>> that int main(){ P(P); } never halts when we assume that H is only a
>>>>>>>> pure simulator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you refuse to responde to rebuttals from me because I present
>>>>>>> rebuttals so clear that you can't come up with an answer to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of your "rebuttals" are entirely anchored in your inability to pay
>>>>>> attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FALSE.
>>>>>
>>>>> You lack of responses shows you don't understand any of the theory you
>>>>> are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you call a 'dishonest dodge' is me pointing out that the Nth
>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>> you start an arguement, and are trying to misuse a terminology,
>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not freaking matter that I misuse terminology that is a
>>>>>> freaking
>>>>>> dishonest dodge. What matters is that my halt decider is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you are misusing the word 'correct', or is it Halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Misuse of terminology is Fundamentally wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I don't misuse those words. If I misuse terminology that it material to
>>>> my proof then there is a problem.
>>>
>>> Yes, words like Turing Machine, or Halting, or Correct, or Equivalent,
>>> or even Proof.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to really know what these are.
>>>
>>
>> (1) Turing Machine, I use this term correctly no errors can be pointed out.
>
> No, you use the word, but claim things are equivalent that can not be.
>
> For instance, you claim that the Turing Machine for the H^ Machine
> doesn't include a copy of the machine H, which it must.
>
>

A RASP machine need not have any copy of its input.
A RASP machine is essentially a very simplified form of the x86
language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine

>
>
>>
>> (2) Halting, I may have adapted the original definition, or not.
>> According to André the final state of a computation must be reached for
>> a computation to be considered as having halted.
>
> Right,
>
>>
>> (3) Equivalent, I have adapted the original definition to apply to
>> subsets of computations.
>
> There is no 'adapted', things either ARE equivalent or they are not.
>

It is unconventional to even refer to a subset of computations as
equivalent across two different machine architectures. None-the-less the
x86 language is Turing equivalent for the subset of computations that do
not require more memory than is available.

> Your 'Equivalent' to the H^ Turing machine which takes a representaion,
> and makes a copy, doesn't make a copy. This makes it not the equivalent,
> especially since you then use an address comparison test to find that
> they are the same machine which can't actually be done in a Turing
> Machine (maybe you can show your great knowledge of Truing Machine by
> showing how you could do this with a REAL Turing Machine).
>
>>
>> (4) Correct means that the condition of a conditional expression is
>> satisfied.
>
> Halting == Non-Haltign is Correct???
>
> You don't even seem to understand what is a valid premise.

Premises are never valid, they are true or false.
If you want an honest dialogue then you will accept this correction.

> You have
> NEVER actually quoted an accepted premise to start with, but
>

I started working on getting my lingo straight today.
Until I had a solution I could not risk being boxed into a corner by
conventional concepts. I had to do all of my analysis from first
principles, creating my own private language and the basis of slightly
changing the meaning of conventional terms.

>>
>> (5) Proof, here is what I mean by proof, it is an adaptation of the
>> sound deductive inference model such that valid inference must only
>> include true preserving operations.
>
> Again, 'adaptaion'? SOUND when you start from FALSE premises.
>
> As I said above, you don't understand what is a Correct presmis.
>

A correct proof is alsmost exactly like sound deductive inference.
Mathematical logic totally screws up the notion of a correct proof in
that its valid inference rules allow non-truth preserving operations.
That is quite nuts.

>>
>> By proof I mean the application of truth preserving inference steps to
>> premises that are known to be true. Since mathematical logic has some
>> inference steps that are not truth preserving these are ruled out.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
>
> First problem, Proof need to START with accepted truths. All your proofs
> have started with CLAIM, that you try to justify by strained meaning of
> words.
>

They must start with truths that are totally verified as completely true
entirely on the basis of the meaning of the expression of language.

> You do understand that your concept of All Truth is Provable doesn't
> work for the field of Mathematics, and in fact this leads to
> inconsistent logic system which leads to you system being subject to
> that Principle of explosing.
>

This is a key error in the philosphical foundation of mathematics.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323866366_The_Notion_of_Truth_in_Natural_and_Formal_Languages

> NOT using some of the
>
>
>>
>> Validity and Soundness
>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
>> that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion
>> nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be
>> invalid.
>
> For a proof to be valid, you need to use accepted rules of logical
> inference. You need to start with a precise list of premises, and then
> combine these with
>

I reject all of those accepted rules that are not truth preserving
operations.

>>
>> A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
>> of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is
>> unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>
> And you keep on using FALSE premises, thus your arguements are UNSOUND.
> You don't seem to understand this, as you never actually try to prove
> your premises, thus you have no grounds to claim them to be true.
>

My premises are impossibly false because my premises are x86 code.

> A Deductive Argument must start with PROVEN true premises, not just
> claimed true.
>

Necessarily true premises.

> 'Actually True' means you have to be able to actually show it is true.
>
>>
>> // original definition of valid  (same as P → C)
>>
>> Material conditional
>> p   q p → q
>> T   T   T
>> T   F   F
>> F   T   T
>> F   F   T
>>
>> Transforming the above to become truth preserving:
>>
>> The definition of valid is changed to:
>> p   q   p [PROVES] q
>> T   T        T
>> T   F        F
>> F   T        F
>> F   F        F
>
> I guess this means all your arguments are not valid, as all your
> arguments start with a false premise.
>
> Note, this confuses Valid with Soundness.
>

I have no need for a separate valid. A separate valid is only useful if
you don't know that your premises are true.

> The problem with this is that the REAL definition of valid allows you to
> be able to prove that an argument would be valid even without knowing if
> the premises are true.
>
> For example, This is a valid argument:
>
> John being a Big Boy implies that John is Big.
>

That is a taulogy.

> This is a valid argument. If it turns out that John actually IS a Big
> Boy, says we can then use this valid arguement to make the sound
> arguement, John is a big boy, thus John is Big.
>
> Even if we later find out that John isn't a Big Boy, the first argument
> is still valid.
>
>>
>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
>> that the conclusion is only true if and only if the premises are true.
>
> WRONG.
>

It can't be wrong this is a stipulative definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition

> Kitty is a black cat, since all black cats are cats, Kitty is a cat.
>
> This is a valid deductive argument.
>

No it is sound, not merely valid.

> There is the case that Kitty might actually be a white cat, and thus the
> conclusion is True, but there was a false premise. This makes it
> unsound, but not invalid.
>
> The conclusion can be true even if the premise is not true. This is
> easily true if an argument is of the form of specific to the genuine
>
>>
>> All of the above is summed up as
>> P [PROVES] C if and only if (True(P) ⊢ True(C) ∧ False(P) ⊢ False(C))
>>
>> modal operators are most often interpreted
>> "□" for "Necessarily" and "◇" for "Possibly".
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
>> (P [PROVES] C) ↔ (P ↔ □C)
>>
>> H(P,P)==0 is proven to be true on the basis that truth preserving
>> operations are applied to premises that are verified as true: (P ↔ □C)
>>
>>>>
>>>> If my misuse of terminology is immaterial to my proof then this is an
>>>> side-issue that is irrelevant to my proof.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When people use irrelevant side-issues to avoid addressing the key point
>>>> at hand this is a dishonest dodge.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, and that is another word you misuse, 'dishonest'. It is NOT
>>> dishonest to point out an error in an arguement, even if it isn't the
>>> point you are trying to focus on as long as it does relate to the
>>> problem at hand.
>>>
>>
>> If an error is pointed out in the actual argument then this if valid.
>> If an error is pointed that does not directly pertain to the argument
>> then this is a dishonest dodge away from the point at hand.
>>
>
> Almost all of your errors START with an initial claim of a premise that
> is not true.

My premises are the x86 source-code.

> You have never (well, maybe only almost never) actually
> gone back and tried to prove your initial claim, all you do is say it
> has to be true by the meaning of the words (and never actually perform a
> step by step proof for that, if you even could).
>
> Some times this error is because you change the meaning of a word
> through the argument. Several times, you have claimed as a dishonest
> dodge when I point out that your claim, while possibly true with one
> meaning of the words, was NOT true with the meaning that you ware about
> to use, because you have stated the same arguement
>
>>> YOU use dishonest dodges to avoid having to try to deal with the
>>> multitude of errors in your logic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you admit that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It shows you utter lack of knowledge in the field.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does not show an utter lack of knowledge in the field.
>>>
>>> Whht, like the fact that you totally don't understand what a Turing
>>> Machine or a Computation is? Or Haltimg, or even what a Proof is.
>>>
>>> Not sure you really understand what is Truth.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It shows a lack of complete knowledge in the field that can effect my
>>>> credibility. This lack has no effect on the validity of my proof that
>>>> H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>
>>> Only that just about every statement in you 'proof' is invalid or
>>> unsound.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to know enough to know how badly you are wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> point out where you are going to in two steps change the meaning of a
>>>>>>> word and still assume the arguement based on a different meaning
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> holds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS THE ONLY FREAKING DETAIL THAT COUNTS.
>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status of the input to H.
>>>>>> Everything that bypasses this point is a dishonest dodge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, IF Halting is defined to be non-halting, then H(P,P) being
>>>>> non-halting could be a correct answer in your world of inconsistent
>>>>> logic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Halting is defined as reaching the final state of the C function.
>>>
>>> Right, and when you run P(P) is does that.
>>
>> The Halting problem does not pertain to the behavior of P, it only
>> pertains the behavior of the input to P.
>
> INCORRECT.
>
>>
>>      the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
>>      is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
>>      does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
>>      computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
>
> READ THAT AGAIN,
>
> given the description of a Turing Machine M: Thus the input is the
> description, and M is the actual Turing Machine that it is the
> description of.
>

The problem is: Does the input to H halt on its input H(P,P).
The input to H never halts on its input because it specifies infinitely
nested simulation.

> Does M, ... perform a computation that eventually halts.
>
> Thus, it is the behavior of the ACTUAL Machine that matters.
>

It is the actual behavior of the machine that is encoded as a string and
input to H. It is always only from the frame-of-reference of input to H.
It is never from the frame-of-reference of independent execution.

THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
aborts its simulation.

THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
aborts its simulation.

THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
aborts its simulation.

THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
aborts its simulation.

THIS IS THE PART THAT EVERYONE IS BRAIN DEAD ON
the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state whether or not H ever
aborts its simulation.

> What is the input to H, it is the description of the Turing Machine P.
> Thus what matter, the behavior of the ACTUAL Turing Machine P
>

No nitwit it is an x86 machine address** how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?
No nitwit it is an x86 machine address how freaking stupid can you be?

** I told him this 50 times

> Not, as you seem to want to try to claim, what happens inside the
> partial simulation by H of the desciption of P.
>
> Can you understand those words????
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Not halting is defined as never reaching the final state of the function
>>>> while H is in pure simulator mode. Not halting must be defined in terms
>>>> of never reaching the final state of the function to distinguish it from
>>>> functions that had their simulation aborted.
>>>
>>> WRONG. Not Halting is defined as never being able to reach the final
>>> state of the function when fully run. The fact that a simulation doesn't
>>> get there because the simulation was stopped before it happened to get
>>> there proves nothing.
>>>
>>
>> The Halting problem does not pertain to the behavior of P, it only
>> pertains the behavior of the input to P.
>
>
> See above.
>>
>>      the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
>>      is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
>>      does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
>>      computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).
>>
>> The input to H(P,P) does not reach its final state whether or not H ever
>> aborts the simulation of this input.
>
> Doesn't matter, see above, P(P) does, so that is what matters.
>>
>> This is where you attention deficit disorder comes in. You can't seem to
>> be able to pay attention to the steps that prove:
>
> Maybe you should learn to read English.
>
> As
>
>>
>> the input to H(P,P) does not reach its final state whether or not H ever
>> aborts the simulation of this input.
>
> If you modify that copy of H to not stop simulating (Keeping the copy of
> H on the 'input' its original) then it does reach the halt, showing that
> P(P) does Halt.
>

No nitwit there is no copy**, how freaking stupid can you be ?
No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?
No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?
No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?
No nitwit there is no copy, how freaking stupid can you be ?

** I told him this 50 times

_P()
[00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
[00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H

The above code cannot possibly reach its final state
The only freaking control flow instruction repeats the whole sequence.
You must be diligently striving to be as disingenuous as possible.

Revelation 21:8 KJV
....all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
and brimstone: which is the second death.

>>
>>
>>> THIS sort of 'Misuse of Terminology' is why your whole arguments isn't
>>> worth the paper it is written on.
>>>
>>> To paraphrase Sargent Shultz, YOU KNOW NOTHING.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to even know enough to see how idiodic your statements
>>> sound.
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein