On 8/13/2021 3:58 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 16:50:19 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 10:40 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 13:24:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can
>>>>>>>>> help in any way, do let me know.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel
>>>>>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do
>>>>>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font
>>>>>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will
>>>>>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another
>>>>>>>> notation to misuse and abuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the
>>>>>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct.
>>>>>> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague
>>>>>> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode.
>>>>>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you
>>>>>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like
>>>>>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may
>>>>>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get
>>>>>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have
>>>>>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you
>>>>>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your
>>>>>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards
>>>>>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you.
>>>>>> -
>>>>> YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows
>>>>> what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is
>>>>> just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not
>>>>> return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently.
>>>>>
>>>>> The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it
>>>>> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact
>>>>> it's not that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works.
>>>> _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
>>>> If this means that you are telling me that:
>>>> (1) You know the x86 language very well.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested
>>>> simulation while H acts as a pure simulator?
>>>>
>>> OK, so let's start.
>>> There's a line which says "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine
>>> Address:d02". Is that part of the execution trace, or is it a commented added
>>> by hand? If it is part of the execution trace, why doesn't this line appear
>>> before the second line with the label 0d02?
>> The halt decider automatically writes this when it begins the simulation
>> that its halt analysis is based on.
>>
> OK, so why don't we get a second "Begin Local Halt Decider ..." line output?

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

The simulation of the input begins and continues until it ends.

>>>>
>>>> I would say that you must be a liar.
>>>>
>>> I have a PhD. PhD holder attach a very high value to honesty, in particular
>>> with respect to their subjects. But also more generally. I always draw attention
>>> if I'm given too much change at the pub, for example, not becaue I'm better
>>> than other people, but because I'm a doctor, and a doctor can't be seen to
>>> take money that doesn't belong to him.
>>>
>> So do (1) and (2) apply to you?
>>
> That was a demand for an apology, but you are too focused on your own
> interests to be sensitive to what other people are trying to communicate to you.
>

I still can't tell whether you are telling the truth or not because you
have not yet committed to the actual truth and rejected the falsehood.
If (1) and (2) do apply to you then you would be a liar.

The point that I am trying to make here is so damn simple that everyone
should have agreed to it in less than a week. It has been many months.

There is no freaking code in the body of P that can possibly escape
infinitely nested simulation while H remains a pure simulator. If you as
much as refrain from agreeing to that (and know the x86 language very
well) then you would be a liar.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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