On 5/5/2022 12:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:17:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 7:27 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 12:54:54 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/22 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2022 10:43 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 11:38:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 11:09:35 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2022 9:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:55:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2022 9:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2022 7:59 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2022 9:16 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/2/2022 11:39 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is clear that the input to H(P,P) specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What two pointers must be passed to H for H to tell up
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P(P)? If H can't report on the halting of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation P(P) it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a halt decider, and you have already told use that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) == false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H can report on the halting of non-input P(P) then it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider because deciders only compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM deciders compute mappings from inputs to final states
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some property of the inputs/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That par is exactly correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- whether the input represents, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That part has been the key error of everyone in that they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is can represent something other than what it actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So now, after thinking otherwise for years, you claim that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to even specify the computation P(P) for you pseudo-C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. At least that is a clear admission that the halting of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls like P(P) can not be decided because, apparently,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passing P and P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H does not specify that computation, and you can't say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments /would/ specify it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A clear and unambiguous statement that no D such that D(X,Y)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == true if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and only if X(Y) halts and false otherwise is possible would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> honest way to move things on. If you were clear about this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone will talk to you about [whatever] it is that your H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deciding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you won't admit that no algorithm can do what D is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified to do?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just going to pretend that no one cares about actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you see that by ignoring this point you are confirming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know D can't exist. If you thought such a D was possible,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shouting that from the roof tops since it's what everyone else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I adapted my system so that I could empirically test this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But neither can tell us squat about the halting of P(P) -- the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H was originally supposed to decide.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you simply wired to ignore my words so that you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything that I say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P)==true reports on the behavior of P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I try to ignore that bits that are irrelevant. These two deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>> decide all halting instances between them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bool H1(X, Y) { return true; }
>>>>>>>>>>>> bool H2(X, Y) { return false; }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither is interesting. For H1, the key case is H1(H1_hat,
>>>>>>>>>>>> H1_hat) or
>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe you call it H1(P1,P1) now since P is what you used to call
>>>>>>>>>>>> H_hat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P)==true is empirically proven to be correct
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==false is empirically proven to be correct
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If that is so then H and H1 don't perform the same mapping. This
>>>>>>>>>> means that one (or both) do not compute the halting function.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So which one doesn't compute the halting function?
>>>>>>>>> *ALL THESE THINGS ARE EASILY VERIFIABLE FACTS*
>>>>>>>>> Both take the machine code of P as input parameters and are provably
>>>>>>>>> correct simulations of this same input yet one correctly determines
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> its input halts and the other correctly determines that its input does
>>>>>>>>> not halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which means at least one is not computing the halting function. So
>>>>>>>> which one is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above paragraph means that it makes no mistakes in computing the
>>>>>>> halting function. This is a verifiable fact, not any mere opinion. The
>>>>>>> reason that I did the HP in C/x86 was so that every detail can be shown
>>>>>>> thus gaps in reasoning revealed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any decider that maps the halting function performs the *same* mapping
>>>>>> of inputs to outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is now proven to be factually incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the above paragraph is proven to be a fact then this proves that both
>>>>> H and H1 compute the halting function correctly. The above paragraph can
>>>>> be proven to be a fact.
>>>> Yes, IF you can prove that cats are dogs, you can prove that H is
>>>> correctly computing the Halting Function.
>>>>
>>>> Since you can't, you can't.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, you have just proven that you don't know what you are talking
>>>> about, since you just asserted a LIE.
>>>>
>>>> Two machines claiming to compute the same function must generate the
>>>> same answer from the same input or one of them is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> BASIC FACT.
>>>>
>>> In parapsychology, there's something called "the experimenter effect". The same
>>> experiment will show a parapsychological effect or not, depending on who is
>>> performing the experiment. This has been described as parapsychology's one finding.
>>> If true in an interesting way, it also strikes at the heart of the scientific method.
>>>
>>> But intuitively, it's not implausible that an experiment would "work" for an experimenter
>>> with gypsy blood, for example. You can't simply reject the experimenter effect on the
>>> basis that, if it means more than that certain experimenters are more gullible than
>>> others, it leaves the rest of science in tatters.
>>>
>>> PO says that a machine has one behaviour when run, and another behaviour when
>>> "correctly simulated". That claim, if true, similarly leaves the whole of computer science
>>> in tatters. Which means that it's his responsibility to provide a much better explanation
>>> of what he means than he has done currently.
>>>
>>> But he's been clear about this. He's asserting what anyone who knows just a tiny amount
>>> about computers must consdier to be nonsense. At first glance. But the idea that
>>> i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1 whilst ijk also = -1 also seems like nonsense at first glance. The
>>> difference is that more details were forthcoming.
>> Anyone knowing the x86 language can verify that H(P,P) and H1(P,P)
>> compute the mapping from their input parameters to their own final state
>> correctly. Arguing with verified facts is a fools folly.
>
> So in other words, a decider is always correct about what it's own input does.
>

Yes this is an easily verified fact on the basis of the execution trace
derived from the correct simulation of its input parameters.

> If you believe that to be true, then you also believe that anyone knowing the x86 language can verify that Ha3(N,5) correctly computes the mapping from its input to a non-halting state.
>

H2(Ha3,N,5) would get the correct halt status for Ha3.

From what I recall Ha3(N,5) is merely a computation that was defined to
make sure it gets the wrong answer. If you disagree then remind me again
what it means.

> If you don't agree, then give a correctness criteria that can be applied to *any* input and *any* decider that demonstrates that Ha3(N,5) == false is not correct but H(P,P) == false is correct.
>
> Failure to provide such a criteria will be taken as an admission that that Ha3(N,5) == false is correct.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer