On 5/5/2022 9:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:08:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> 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.
>> That the execution trace of the simulated input to H(P,P) exactly
>> matches the behavior specified by its x86 source-code provides the
>> ultimate measure of a correct simulation thus overriding and superseding
>> any and all other measures.
>>
>> _P()
>> [000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
>> [000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
>> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
>> [000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
>> [000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
>> [000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
>> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
>>
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>> address address data code language
>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> All this trace shows is that H aborted its input.

This trace of the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively
proves that when P calls the same function with the same parameters from
the same address that H has its reject (non-halting) criteria.

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