On 4/13/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this
>>>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that
>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know
>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired
>>>>>>>> result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a
>>>>>>>> confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to
>>>>>>>>> meet the
>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever
>>>>>>>>> it enters
>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a
>>>>>>>> turing machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE
>>>>>>>>> IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of
>>>>>>>> halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition
>>>>>>>> of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong
>>>>>> because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill
>>>>> Jones
>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>
>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>
>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)

It has to be true to be a tautology.

> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the universe
> can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.

But it ISN'T, at least not by the CORRECT definition of the 'behavior of
the input' for a Halt Decider.

Hint, Look at the DEFINITION!!

H <M> w -> Qy iff M w Halts and -> Qn iff M w never Halts.

Thus, the DEFINITION of the behavior of the input <M> w is the behavior
of M applied to w.

In the case of <H^> <H^> we have established that your defined behavior
for H is H <H^> <H^> -> Qn, and given that behavior, from the definition
of the machine H^, it will Halt.

This is a DEFINED FACT, and nothing in the Universe, especially nothing
you say that can tht fact, because YOU don't know what you are saying.

>
>
>
>
> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.

But correct simulation NEVER are aborted, so you are talking about the
wrong thing,

>
> _P()
> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax       // push P
> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx       // push P
> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826  // call H(P,P)
> The above keeps repeating until aborted

So, you are looking at the wrong thing, you are looking at the
INCORRECT/Partial simulation of the input by H, not the CORRECT
simulation of the input by a REAL simulator.

That would see that the H that P calls will abort ITS simulation and
return non-halting and thus see that P halts.

This has bedn told to you many times, and you just repeat your LIE.

>
>
> [00000966](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00000969](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02)  7402            jz 0000096f
> [0000096d](02)  ebfe            jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000970](01)  c3              ret    // final state.
> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>
>
>

FAIL.

All you have done is proved that you don't know the meaning of the basic
words of the fields, be it COmptation Theory, or even basic logic.

You legacy is that you are a LYING KOOK.

FAIL.