On 4/14/22 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/14/2022 1:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 14/04/2022 04:16, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, 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 ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> and Dennis
>>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as
>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but
>>>>>>> that you know it.
>>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>>>
>>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>>>
>>>
>>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>>>
>>> _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 returns false
>>> [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.
>>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>>
>>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same
>>> input so both are answering the exact same question but get different
>>> results, so one must be wrong. H makes an abort decision and leaves
>>> UTM mode to abort. Hb *never* leaves UTM mode and simulates the input
>>> to a final state.
>>>
>>> Therefore Hb(P,P)==true is correct, proving that H(P,P)==false is
>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> PO published his own trace about a year ago, where he actually showed
>> P(P) halting!  (I suspect it was an accident, and he forgot to
>> manually delete the end of the trace.)
> The fact that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) would never
> reach its own final state conclusively proves that this input is
> non-halting and nothing in the universe can possibly contradict this.

So, you disbelive your own trace that showed it did halt?

>
> It seems that people here simply "do not believe in" logical tautology.
>
>

Except tautologies need to be true, and not based on errors.

P(P) and thus the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) does halt if
H meets the requirments of answering, so you logic is just flawed and
your insistance just proves you lie and don't actually care about what
is actually true.