On 5/23/22 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about
>>>>>>>>>> which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes
>>>>>>>>>> in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem
>>>>>>>>>> is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.
>>>>>>>>>> Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post
>>>>>>>>>> will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and
>>>>>>>>>> an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without
>>>>>>>>>> an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of
>>>>>>>>>> steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input
>>>>>>>>>> to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot
>>>>>>>>> is black
>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>
>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>> to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are
>>>>>>>> given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as
>>>>>> Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>
>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>
>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the
>> traces differ, then that would also mean that
>
> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>
> >>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> to back that up.
>
> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>
> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:

No, they can confirm that it MUST be INCORECT by the requirement of H.

P(P) will Halt if H(P,P) returns 0.

H(P,P) is REQUIRED to return 1 if P(P) halts, that is the DEFINITION of
a Halting Decider, thus H is wrong.

You are NOT allowed to change the Definition of the problem and still
claim to be working on the problem.

That is like you saying it is ok to say "I have no dogs in my house"
when someone asks "Howmany Cats are in your houst?"

>
> Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of finite
> strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for
> returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret"
> instruction.

Except that it DOESN'T correctly emulates its input if it aborts it.

And your finite string that you claim is P doesn't define the program P
as it refers to code outside the string. (PROGRAMS are complete, and
Halting is defined on COMPLETE PROGRAMS).

>
> The only other remaining objection is whether or not a halt decider must
> compute the mapping of its input finite strings to an accept or reject
> state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its
> input OR SOME OTHER MEASURE.

Right, and the BEHAVIOR OF THE INPUT for H(P,P) IS *DEFINED* to be
whether P(P) Halts or not. Any other defintion and you are not working
on the Halting Problem.
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>
>

Just a bunch of garbage that shows you don't know what you are talking
about. Detail reviews given previously.

>
>
>
> That is all that any of you have and good software engineering refutes
> the first and good computer science refutes the second.

Nope, GOOD computer science shows that you are not good at computer
science and fail to comprehend even the basics of it.