On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:47:07 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>

Not at all, I'm just illustrating the flaws in your logic, as you can't show that Ha3 is wrong without also showing that H is also wrong....

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

.... just like this.

What you states above is sufficient to show that Ha3(N,5) is not correct to abort, and Ha7(N,5) simulating to a final state and reporting halting proves that Ha3 didn't simulate for long enough.

Now let's apply that to H(P,P).

H(P,P) is not correct to abort, and H1(P,P) simulating to a final state and reporting halting proves that H didn't simulate for long enough.

Therefore H(P,P) == false is provable INCORRECT.

> > 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