On 8/10/2021 4:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-08-10 15:27, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/10/2021 3:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-10 12:39, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2021 12:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-08-10 10:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2021 10:28 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 09:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 8:47 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-08-09 16:47, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The P that halts seems to contradict that H(P,P)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>> yet it is verifiable that H(P,P)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> P(P) is either in the set of halting computations or it is not.
>>>>>>>>> It can't be both.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since halting is a property defined *solely* in terms of the
>>>>>>>>> behaviour of the *actual* computation in question, we know that
>>>>>>>>> P(P) is in this set. Therefore H(P, P) == 0 *cannot* be
>>>>>>>>> verifiably correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you keep ignoring this means that you are dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not ignoring this. I am asserting that it is false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _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 2nd Param
>>>>>>>> [00000d09](03)  8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>> [00000d0c](01)  51          push ecx       // push 1st Param
>>>>>>>> [00000d0d](05)  e870feffff  call 00000b82  // call H
>>>>>>>> [00000d12](03)  83c408      add esp,+08
>>>>>>>> [00000d15](02)  85c0        test eax,eax
>>>>>>>> [00000d17](02)  7402        jz 00000d1b
>>>>>>>> [00000d19](02)  ebfe        jmp 00000d19
>>>>>>>> [00000d1b](01)  5d          pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00000d1c](01)  c3          ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      machine   stack     stack     machine     assembly
>>>>>>>>      address   address   data      code        language
>>>>>>>>      ========  ========  ========  =========   =============
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff  call 00000b82  //
>>>>>>>> call H
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55          push ebp
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50          push eax       //
>>>>>>>> push P
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51          push ecx       //
>>>>>>>> push P
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff  call 00000b82  //
>>>>>>>> call H
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55          push ebp
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50          push eax       //
>>>>>>>> push P
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51          push ecx       //
>>>>>>>> push P
>>>>>>>> ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff  call 00000b82  //
>>>>>>>> call H
>>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We can see that the above is a pure simulation of P on input P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It *isn't* a pure simulation since a pure simulation cannot abort
>>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another dishonest dodge. The above is a pure simulation, Only
>>>>>> *AFTER* the above is there any aborting of the simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what happens *after* this is exactly what is critical,
>>>>
>>>> No it is not. What can be seen while H is in pure simulator mode
>>>> conclusively proves that unless some H aborts some P that neither H
>>>> nor P will ever stop running.
>>>
>>> But whether *some* H aborts *some* P isn't the question H(P, P) is
>>> supposed to answer.
>>
>>
>> When we know that some H must abort some P we know for sure that this
>> H did abort that P correctly. Until you are honest enough to agree to
>> that I will not respond to you.
>
> Let's see if that reasoning works...
>
> Dr. Halstead knew that *some* baby needed to be aborted.
> Therefore he was correct in aborting Mrs. Smith's baby.
>
> Something doesn't seem quite right with that...

This seem to indicate that you have little interest in an honest dialogue.

When we know (by logical necessity) that some H must abort some P we
know for sure that this H did abort that P correctly.

Until you are honest enough to agree to that I will not respond to you.

>
>>
>>> It's suppose answer the question "does P(P), run as an independent
>>> computation, halt".  You keep trying to invent new questions which
>>> you claim are somehow "equivalent" to the above question, but if two
>>> questions do not always result in the exact same answer then they
>>> *cannot* be equivalent.
>
> Did you even try to address the above?
>
>>> People have agreed to the fact that if it really were the case that a
>>> simulating halt decider *must* abort its input, then that would
>>> entail that its input represents a non-halting computation. But
>>> that's *only* defensible if it is interpreted as meaning that that a
>>> *specific* H must abort its input or the input to that *specific* H
>>> wouldn't halt, not merely that *some* H aborts its input somewhere.
>>>
>>> The outermost H in H(P, P) doesn't *need* to abort its input, nor
>>> *should* it abort its input given that when P(P) is run
>>> independently, the H contained in P aborts its input thereby allowing
>>> the outermost P to halt.
>
> Did you even read the above two paragraphs which make it clear that
> "some H aborts its input" definitely does not entail that "the outermost
> H needs to abort its input"
>
>>> Given that P(P) halts, any 'decider' which claims that it does not is
>>> simply wrong. Given that P(P) halts, any 'simulating decider' which
>>> claims that it *must* abort its simulation rather than allow the
>>> simulation to terminate on its own is not accurately simulating P(P)
>>> or is using illegitimate criteria to determine that it "must" abort
>>> its simulation.
>
> Did you even try to address the above?
>
>>> It is the *actual* behaviour of P(P) which *unequivocally* determines
>>> which answer any halt decider must give if it really correctly
>>> decides halting. There's simply no way around that fact. You will
>>> *never* be taken seriously by anyone if you keep trying to justify
>>> your claim that a demonstrably incorrect answer is somehow "correct".
>
> Did you even try to address the above?
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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