On 12/4/2021 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 12/4/21 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 9:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/2/21 8:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 02/12/2021 23:54, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/21 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 15:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 14:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 13:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then we know that X never halts and H is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct to abort the simulation of this input and return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What on earth is N?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary element of the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And right below I explain why this leads to a nonsensical
>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. Of course, you ignored this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because there exists no N in the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>> such that N steps of the simulation of the input H(X,Y) stops
>>>>>>>>>>> running we correctly conclude that (this invocation invariant
>>>>>>>>>>> proves) the input to H(X,Y) never stops running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you mean 'every N' rather than 'any N'. But this just
>>>>>>>>>> amounts to saying that if X doesn't halt that it is
>>>>>>>>>> non-halting, so why bring up N at all?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because my reviewers seem too dense to comprehend it any other
>>>>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your "reviewers" can't understand 'every' and insist you use 'any'?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But your decider, if it decides to abort its input, must do so
>>>>>>>>>> after some FINITE number of steps, so it cannot actually test
>>>>>>>>>> for 'every N'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you test every N in mathematical induction? (Of course not
>>>>>>>>> you dumb bunny).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nowhere does your 'proof' make use of anything even remotely
>>>>>>>> analogous to mathematical induction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, the relevant property P(n) is proven for the base case,
>>>>>>> which often corresponds to n = 0 or n = 1. Then we assume that
>>>>>>> P(n) is true, and we prove P(n+1). The proof for the base case(s)
>>>>>>> and the proof that allows us to go from P(n) to P(n+1) provide a
>>>>>>> method to prove the property for any given m >= 0 by successively
>>>>>>> proving P(0), P(1), ..., P(m). We can't actually perform the
>>>>>>> infinity of proves necessary for all choices of m >= 0, but the
>>>>>>> recipe that we provided assures us that such a proof exists for
>>>>>>> all choices of m.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To reduce the possibility of error, we will structure all our
>>>>>>> induction proofs rigidly, always highlighting the following four
>>>>>>> parts:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The general statement of what we want to prove;
>>>>>>> The specification of the set we will perform induction on;
>>>>>>> The statement and proof of the base case(s);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The statement of the induction hypothesis (generally, we will
>>>>>>> assume that P(n) holds, but sometimes we need stronger
>>>>>>> assumptions, see below), the statement of P(n+1) and proof of the
>>>>>>> induction step (or case).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs312/2004fa/lectures/lecture9.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,0)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N+1) P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>>> ∴ the input to H(P,P) never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These are just STATEMENTS, you haven't PROVED anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess that just shows mow much you LIE.
>>>>>
>>>>> You call PO a liar quite a lot, but to be a liar PO would need to
>>>>> be deliberately trying to deceive you.  Do you think that's the
>>>>> case? Or is it reasonable to think that PO /believes/ what he said
>>>>> above is a genuine application of the mathematical principle of
>>>>> induction. [Yes, PO has no logical /grounds/ for thinking that,
>>>>> since he lacks any understanding of the principle, but the question
>>>>> is about what PO /believes/.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I would say PO genuinely doesn't understand that his
>>>>> arguments are idiotic, due to some psychological/neural problem.  I
>>>>> see his claims and reasoning he puts forward for them more akin to
>>>>> confabulation, where a patient invents memories and explanations
>>>>> for a state of affairs they believe to be true, without necessarily
>>>>> having any deceptive intent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, there are cases where PO repeats claims (like where he
>>>>> repeats his obviously false claim to have had fully coded TMs a
>>>>> couple of years ago), even AFTER it is explained that what he is
>>>>> saying does not correspond to accepted wording of the terms used,
>>>>> and so is simply false.  Maybe it's hard to swallow that this might
>>>>> not be direct lying on PO's part, but even in these situations I
>>>>> suspect his mind/memory/understanding is so "malleable" that /to
>>>>> him/ it really does seem that he was telling the truth all the time??
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't really /know/ whether PO is conciously lying in these
>>>>> cases, but it does seem to me that PO is so thoroughly DELUDED that
>>>>> he could look at someone holding up 4 fingers and convince himself
>>>>> that, yes there are 4 fingers, but also it is correct that there
>>>>> are 5, or 3, for some reason!  (And genuinely believe that - not
>>>>> just be lying about it...) He is perhaps the ideal citizen of
>>>>> Oceana!  :) Or, perhaps in his heart he knows he is making false
>>>>> claims - not easy to say either way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps a bigger point is that it doesn't really matter either way
>>>>> whether PO is actually lying or confabulating or some third option
>>>>> - I'm not even sure the distinction is meaningful in PO's case.
>>>>> What he says is all totally irrelevant, and even if someone
>>>>> "proved" the PO was "lying" it would make no difference whatsoever
>>>>> to anything...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>>
>>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why
>>> one is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the
>>> expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>>
>>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>>
>>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>>
>>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others
>>> - and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence
>>> that PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to
>>> others points.
>>>
>>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something
>>> everybody else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>>
>>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of
>>> reason" is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying,
>>> right? ]
>>>
>>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>>> in my books, still lying.
>>>
>>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even
>>> trying because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes
>>> himself into believing those facts aren't important because he has
>>> some superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving
>>> "categorically exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>>
>>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>>
>>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people
>>> were saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation
>>> on an academic level with such a person?
>>>
>>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>>
>>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/
>>> the reality of the situation, but there are many examples of
>>> delusional frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem
>>> very strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>
>>
>> The real problem is that you are either too stupid or dishonest to
>> acknowledge this obvious fact:
>>
>> On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  > Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
>>  > H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
>>  > aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
>>  >
>>
>>
>
> And you are too stupid to see the flaw in your argument caused by sloppy
> language.
>
> H needs to be a SPECIFIC decider.
>
> If for a GIVEN H, and the P built from it, we have that
>
> H(P,P) returns 0, then it is clear that when we run P(P) as a
> computation THAT P(P) will call H and that H will do a simulation of a
> COPY of P(P), and H will abort THAT COPY, and return 0 to the calling P
> and that P will return and halt.
>
> Thus the outer P is shown to run and halt in finite time purely on its
> own (using ITS copy of H), and thus is clearly a Halting Computation.
>
> This means that the P that H is simulating will have exactly the same
> behavior, and thus H MSUT have used incorrect logic to decide that it
> was Non-Halting. PERIOD.
>

#include <stdint.h>
typedef void (*ptr)();

int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{ x(y);
return 1;
}

// Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
void P(ptr x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main(void)
{ P(P);
}

On the basis of the above code that never stops running you know that
this criteria is met

On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
> H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
> aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.

That makes you a liar.

> Outer H run, outer H halts on its own. Something ELSE was aborted, so
> that doesn't affect this logic.
>
> Your mind seems to have lost the ability to distinguish between things
> that are distinct even if they are similar. It is just broken.
>
> You have lost the concept of there actually being something that is True
> and have put your own opinions above what is actually true, and have
> lost all connection with reality.
>
> I am sure you are going to just ignore me again, but perhaps someday,
> hopefully before it is too late, something will seep in and get you to
> seek real help to handle your mental condition.
>
> You have made comments in the past that show a belief in the eternal,
> just remember what those say about those who don't look at what is
> ACTUALLY true.
>
> Truth will not tolerate lies to be in its presence, and if you hold onto
> false ideas, you will not be there with it.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer