On 1/9/2022 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/9/22 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/9/2022 2:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/9/22 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2022 1:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 1/9/22 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/9/2022 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/9/22 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/9/2022 11:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/9/22 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2022 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/22 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/2022 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/8/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // and Strachey(1965) P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (H(x, y))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and P are defined according to the standard HP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-example template shown above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H bases its halt status decision on the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then P demonstrates an infinitely repeating pattern that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This conclusively proves that the input to H meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of non-halting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus the sufficiency condition for H to report that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input specifies a non-halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation V2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Full Proof with Request for Rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have gone around the circle of this MANY times, and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep just rearranging things and not every answering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that you are simply too stupid to ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that P specifies a sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>> that never reach its final state and thus is correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> determined to be a non-halting computation according to Linz.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you are too stupid to see that it doesn't if H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0, as this just proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is always correct for H to report on what the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>> its input would be if H did not interfere with the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>>>> H is an objective observer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is never correct for H to report on what the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>> its input would be if H did interfere with the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>>>> H is not an objective observer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMPROPERLY PHRASED, H must report on what the machine that its
>>>>>>>>> input represents will do, even if that includes a copy of
>>>>>>>>> itself. That is not H 'interfering' with the behavior of that
>>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is Impossible for the copy of a decider doing the deciding
>>>>>>>>> to 'interfere' with the behavior of a machine, as that behavior
>>>>>>>>> is defined independent of the decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, the aborting of a simulation by the copy of the decider
>>>>>>>>> doing the deciding doesn't affect the behavior of the machine
>>>>>>>>> it is deciding on, a copy of it IN the machine it is trying to
>>>>>>>>> decide on, DOES, as it IS part of the machine it is deciding on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that you can't keep the different copies of H separate
>>>>>>>>> shows your lack of reasoning ability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When H reports on what the behavior of its simulated input would
>>>>>>>> be if H did not interfere, it is the same for P, infinite loops,
>>>>>>>> or infinite recursion, H must only reject its input as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except it isn't 'interference' for the copy of H in the input to
>>>>>>> do what it is programmed to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the job of H to determine what the behavior of the input
>>>>>> would be if H did not interfere with this behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alternatively H could correctly recognize inputs that would never
>>>>>> stop running if H did not interfere and then report that every
>>>>>> input does halt when H does interfere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such an H could simply accept every input in that some of its
>>>>>> inputs halt on their own and the other inputs must be aborted. In
>>>>>> this case It would be impossible to create an input that H would
>>>>>> not correctly decide.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> H needs to determine what the machine represented by its input will
>>>>> DO.
>>>>>
>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is impossible for H to change that behavior by it trying to
>>>>> decide on it, as H has been FIXED in definition before that input
>>>>> existed, and the DEEFINITION of the behavior isn't affected by
>>>>> asking H about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ONLY right answer for H(<X>,y) is based on EXACTLY what X(y) does.
>>>>>
>>>>> If X uses a copy of H, that copy needs to behave exactly like H
>>>>> behaves, as that is what H does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please provide an ACTUAL REFERENCE from someone who actually know
>>>>> something about this that uses words anything about this
>>>>> 'interference' that you talk about.
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems to be some figment of your imagination because you just
>>>>> don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> With out an actual reference, repeating this claim will just be a
>>>>> LIE, since the actual definition doesn't use such words.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You simply ignored and erased the important part.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't erase anything.
>>>
>>>> (1) H must report on what the behavior of its input would be without
>>>> any interference by H.
>>>
>>> No, it must reprot on what the behavior of its input IS. It CAN'T
>>> interfere with it by the definition of what that behavior is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> OTHERWISE
>>>>
>>>> (2) H would be correct to simply accept every input as halting on
>>>> the basis that the input halts on its own or was aborted by H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Since you have failed to provide a reference for the source of your
>>> incorrect definition, it just proves that you are making up a LIE.
>>>
>>
>>
>> H reports on what the behavior of its input would be:
>>   X = if H did not interfere with this behavior
>> ~X = if H interferes with this behavior
>> There is only X and ~X.
>
> But H CAN'T 'interfere' with the behavior of P(P), because it is PART of
> the behavior of P(P), so it isn't interference.
>
> Boy are you so dumb.
>
> We have 3 possibilities.
>

H can interfere with the behavior of all of its inputs is stupid.
H can interfere with the behavior of some of its inputs is stupid.
H can interfere with the behavior of none of its inputs is correct.

> Your H can answer, by some method, that H(P,P) == 0 as you claim, at
> which point we can see that the P based on THAT H will Halt, so that H
> is wrong.
>
> Your H can answer, by some method, that H(P,P) == 1 which you don't do,
> and at that point by the definition of P based on THAT H, we will see
> that P(P) will go into an infinite loop after getting that answer, so
> THAT P(P) will be non-halting, and that H was wrong too.
>
> Or, H can just fail to answer, at which point it just fails to be right.
>
> In NONE of these cases has H 'Interfered' with the operation, it was
> just taking its regular part in the operation.
>
> Remember, the definition of Interfere is 'take part or intervene in an
> activity without invitation or necessity.'
>
> Thus the NATURAL action of H as part of P is NOT 'Interference', the
> only way to think of H interfering would be to somehow mistakenly
> thinking that the simulation that H did actually meant something about
> the behavior of that machine.
>
>
> FAIL.
>
> Is English a second language for you are are you just this bad with the
> meaning of words.
>
> As I mentioned before, the definition you are trying to use isn't even
> the actual definition of Halting that we are supposed to apply, it just
> shows that you can't even use your own wrong definition correctly.
>
> You sure must be embarrassed about that sort of error.
>
>
> You need to do better at creating LIES that actually support the
> position you are trying to fake, making up definition that don't
> actually support it just shows how bad your logic is.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> You have just proved that you are incapable of understanding what you
>>> are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> The RIGHT answer, for ANY Halt Decider H(<X>, y) is baseed on that
>>> behavior of X(y). PERIOD.
>>>
>>> Given your claim that H(P,P) returns 0 (Non-Halting) we KNOW from the
>>> definition of P that P(P), which is the compuation that H(P,P) is
>>> asking about, DOES HALT, thus we have PROVED that your H is WRONG.
>>>
>>> PERIOD.
>>>
>>> DEFINITION.
>>>
>>> You are just spreading LIES when you claim that the wrong answer is
>>> right.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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