On 8/14/2022 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/14/22 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/14/2022 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/14/22 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2022 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/22 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/2022 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/22 6:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2022 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/22 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> Wrote in message:r
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:18:53 -0500olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:> On 8/14/2022 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:> > On Sun, 14
>>>>>>>>>>> Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:>
>>>>>>>>>>> >   > >> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are
>>>>>>>>>>> functions in C*> >>> >>       I believe I have learned
>>>>>>>>>>> something valuable from you:> >>       that by simulation,
>>>>>>>>>>> and by simulations within simulations,> >>       non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> can sometimes be detected, and in particular,> >>       it
>>>>>>>>>>> can be detected in the program used in the classical>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>       proof of incomputability.> >>> >> *Halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>> proofs refuted on the basis of software> >> engineering* ?>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>  > > > > I am also a computer scientist and I am telling
>>>>>>>>>>> you that your> > halting decider reporting non-halting when
>>>>>>>>>>> it enters "infinite> > recursion" is an ERROR.  There is no
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion in the HP> > proofs you are attempting to
>>>>>>>>>>> refute.> > > > /Flibble> >   > > > void P(ptr x)> {>    int
>>>>>>>>>>> Halt_Status = H(x, x);>    if (Halt_Status)>      HERE: goto
>>>>>>>>>>> HERE;>    return;> }> > int main()> {>    Output("Input_Halts
>>>>>>>>>>> = ", H(P, P));> }> > If it was true that you are a computer
>>>>>>>>>>> scientist then you would > understand that this execution
>>>>>>>>>>> trace is correct:> > (a) H(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H(P,P)> (b) that simulates P(P) that calls a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H(P,P)> (c) that simulates P(P) that calls a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H(P,P)> (d) that simulates P(P) that calls a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H(P,P)...> *Until H aborts its simulation*I am a
>>>>>>>>>>> computer scientist and all your trace shows is that H (not P)
>>>>>>>>>>> isat the root of your so called "infinite recursion" and is
>>>>>>>>>>> the primaryreason why you are incorrect to map this recursive
>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour of your Hto a halting decision on P of
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.> > If you do not understand that the above
>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace is correct> then this proves that you are not
>>>>>>>>>>> as much as a sufficiently competent > software engineer.It
>>>>>>>>>>> seems I understand your trace more than you do which makes
>>>>>>>>>>> itobvious who is actually lacking in competence here./Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because H exactly simulates its input and has no control flow
>>>>>>>>>>   behavior of it's own while it is simulating this input YOU ARE
>>>>>>>>>>   BLAMING THE MIRROR FOR WHAT IT REFLECTS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H does have control low on its own, or it can't stop the
>>>>>>>>> simulationg to give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because H exactly simulates its input and has no control flow
>>>>>>>> behavior of it's own
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> while it is simulating this input
>>>>>>>> YOU ARE BLAMING THE MIRROR FOR WHAT IT REFLECTS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So either you are a liar, or just badly confused about what you
>>>>>>>>> are saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or you OCD prevents you from paying close enough attention to
>>>>>>>> ALL of my words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then how does it decide to stop simulating if it has no control
>>>>>>> flow before it stops?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H does not have any effect on the behavior of its simulated P the
>>>>>> whole time that H is simulating P, thus any recursive behavior
>>>>>> that P demonstrates is behavior of P and not behavior of H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the problem is in H, not P.
>>>>>
>>>>> This H by its actions might not affect the behavior of the input it
>>>>> is simulating, but it doesn't correctly determine the effect that
>>>>> the copy of H in P will have.
>>>>
>>>> void P(ptr x)
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> So you disagree with this:
>>>>
>>>> (a) H(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
>>>> (b) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
>>>> (c) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
>>>> (d) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)...
>>>> *Until H aborts its simulation*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That isn't what your H does,
>>
>> Why do you say that isn't what my H does when you know that it is what
>> my H does and you can verify this with the complete system?
>>
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/2022_07_22.zip
>> This is the complete system that compiles under:
>>
>> Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2017
>> https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/older-downloads/
>>
>>
>>
>
> Right, you didn't read what I said you H does, did you?
>

You said that what I said H does, it does not do, this is incorrect.
Then you changed the subject.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer