On 8/10/21 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2021 5:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-08-10 15:54, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Says the person who simply keeps repeating themselves ignoring all of
>> the arguments which have been offered to demonstrate that they are wrong.
>>
>
> _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]
>
> ...[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
>
> You have never once shown how the above does not conclusively prove that
> while H acts as a pure simulator on its input (P,P) can possibly halt
> because you know that I am correct. I will not tolerate a dishonest
> dialogue that never reaches closure on any points.

Because H declares itself NOT to be a pure simulator by saying it is
aborting its simulation.

A Pure Simulator NEVER, repeat that NEVER, aborts its simulation.

That is like saying that a bank robber is a model citizen because he
didn't dp anything wrong until he entered the bank to rob it.

Also, the trace is incorrect, as a call instruction should be followed
by the instructions at the destination.

Your trace requires that H be some sort of trap that unconditionally
just goes back to the address specified as the parameters, and thus will
NEVER abort its 'simulation'

In THAT case, yes, H^ is infinitely recursive, but H never gives an
answer to H(H^,H^) so is still wrong.

>
> Do you want to start acknowledging that points that I make that you know
> are correct or would you prefer to be ignored?

Do YOU want to use the right ddfinition?