On 5/5/2022 1:52 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 2:39:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Ha3 uses as its abort criteria any computation that proceeds for more that 3 steps.

WHAT ARE YOU NUTS ???

Trying to push total bullshit likes this proves that you are only a
troll playing head games and an honest dialogue is the last thing on
your mind.

A halt decider must simulate its input until it can prove that the
simulation would never end.

> The input Ha3(N,5) satisfies this abort criteria therefore Ha3 is correct to reject it.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> So what criteria can you give that shows that 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

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