On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:06:12 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/5/2022 5:42 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 6:28:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/5/2022 5:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> OK finally back to an honest dialogue.
> >>>
> >>> It always was. You're apparently unable to see where I was going with this.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>> It is easily proven on the basis of verified facts that H(P,P) and
> >>>> H1(P,P) do correctly compute the halt function for their input parameters.
> >>>
> >>> You don't seem to understand. H1 proves that H is wrong
> >> Both H(P,P) and H1(P,P) correctly compute the mapping from their input
> >> parameters to the halt status specified by these inputs.
> >
> > FALSE. Remember, you said:
> >
> > A halt decider must simulate its input until it can prove that the simulation would never end.
> >
> > Proving that the simulation would never end means that NO simulator can simulate that input to a final state.
> You continue to believe that your imagination overrules verified facts:
>
> That the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) provably would never
> end conclusively proves that H(P,P)==false is correct.

It is a verified fact that H(P,P) does NOT perform a correct simulation of its input. A correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) is performed by H1(P,P) which does end. The simulation of (P,P) performed by H1 conclusively proves that the simulation of the same input by H is not accurate.

I stated on numerous occasions why H(P,P) == false is wrong, and your only response is to assert it is correct without proof. If you can't state clearly exactly why H(P,P) == false is correct then all you're doing is making empty assertions which can be dismissed.

So explain exactly why H(P,P) == false is correct. Failure to do so will be taken as an implicit admission that you are wrong.