On 8/17/2022 12:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 12:44:17 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2022 12:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2022 12:30:38 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/17/2022 11:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:55:38 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/17/2022 11:25 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2022 11:06 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:55:36 AM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2022 10:35 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 11:24:34 AM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2022 9:51 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 10:23:17 AM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2022 6:40 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 12:28:52 AM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 11:02 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:57:51 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 10:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:39:32 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 10:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 11:18:46 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 9:52 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:47:57 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 9:34 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 10:12:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/22 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/22 10:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2022 9:07 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 15:55:30
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete x86 emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) by H WOULD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like you are stuck in a loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your Decider/Maker should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been trying to get an honest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person to acknowledge the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering of my system so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we can move on to the next point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a year now. (bot many honest people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, mostly trolls).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that what you say ISN'T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT software engineering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the wrong definition of things and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect assumptions about thing, so it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just isn't true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) does correctly predict that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete x86 emulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input would never stop running, thus does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly reject this input as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. And in fact, you even acknoldge it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't but just don't see it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete x86 emulation by H(P,P) of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input WOULD STOP RUNNING?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am saying that you H doesn't do a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete emulation of its input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus to say it did is just a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said that H correctly predicts what the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its correct and complete x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of H(P,P) would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fixed source code of H (and everything it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls) that aborts is Ha. Ha *always* aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pa, so "the correct and complete simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)" does not exist, just like the shoes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Napoleon wore on Mars do not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are another brain dead moron the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believes it is utterly impossible for H to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly predict that its correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete x86 emulation of its input would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless H actually performed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct and complete emulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete emulation of Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't exist,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither does the correct and complete emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it does. If you simulate Infinite_Loop(), it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't halt. But if you run Ha(Pa,Pa), it won't do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct and complete simulation because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you run H0((u32)Infinite_Loop)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "it won't do a correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it aborts" How long are you going to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the head game up?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject Ha(Pa,Pa) on this basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run Ha(Pa,Pa), it won't do a correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation because it aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet accept P0(Infinite_Loop), on the same basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it won't do a correct and complete simulation because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it aborts. ∴ You are playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does P0 do? Does it abort? If so, then yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P0(Infinite_Loop) doesn't do a correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation because it aborts, so it's invalid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predict what the correct and complete simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P0(Infinite_Loop) would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, UTM(Infinite_Loop) does do a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete simulation, so it *is* valid to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predict what it will do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are not bright enough to see that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is very easy for H0 to recognize an infinite loop would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halt in a finite number of steps of simulation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm saying that H0 can see that the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation performed by UTM(Infinite_Loop) does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. It does not and cannot see that the correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation performed by H0(Infinite_Loop)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (i.e. your basis for correctness) does not halt because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H0 does not perform a correct and complete simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I mean by H evaluating what its correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of its input would be:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = Simulate(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although H itself does not perform a correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of non-halting inputs H does correctly predict
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that such a simulation would never halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You changed the input from Pa to Pn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're again saying that Ha(Pa,Pa) reports the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of the non-input Pn(Pn) instead of Pa(Pa) as it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to:
>>>>>>>>>>>> H0(Infinite_Loop)
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on Simulate(Infinite_Loop)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(Infinite_Recursion, 0x777)
>>>>>>>>>>>> reports on Simulate((Infinite_Recursion, 0x777)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case a simulating halt decider reports on what the
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its simulated input would be if this SHD was
>>>>>>>>>>>> swapped for a simulator.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And in the case of Ha(Pa,Pa) you change the input in doing
>>>>>>>>>>> so which is not allowed. Remember, what is being decided on
>>>>>>>>>>> is the FIXED source code of Pa and everything it calls,
>>>>>>>>>>> which includes the FIXED source code of Ha and everything
>>>>>>>>>>> it calls.
>>>>>>>>>> THIS JUST SEEMS OVER YOUR HEAD.
>>>>>>>>>> H correctly determines that its input would never halt by
>>>>>>>>>> correctly predicting that its input would never halt if H
>>>>>>>>>> never aborted its simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is not what it is required to do if it claims to be a
>>>>>>>>> halt decider:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For *any* algorithm X and input Y:
>>>>>>>>> H(X,Y)==1 if and only if X(Y) halts, and
>>>>>>>>> H(X,Y)==0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is based on the false assumption that the actual behavior
>>>>>>>> of the actual input is the same behavior as X(Y).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FALSE, because it is the behavior of the direct execution that
>>>>>>> is being asked about.
>>>>>> So you disagree that every decider must base its decision on a
>>>>>> semantic or syntactic property of its input?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words you are asserting that a decider must base its
>>>>>> decision on a semantic or syntactic property of a non-input?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're the one asserting that, as you think that Ha(Pa,Pa) should
>>>>> be reporting the halt status of Pn(Pn):
>>>> A simulating halt decider always reports on what the behavior of
>>>> its pure simulation of its input would be on the basis of
>>>> recognizing an infinite behavior pattern that correctly predicts
>>>> what the behavior of this pure simulation would be without the
>>>> need to actually perform this pure simulation.
>>>
>>> Not when the infinite behaviour is a property of the decider itself
>>> as
>>
>> It superficially seems like the behavior of H(P,P) is mutual infinite
>> recursion until you realize the H is merely mimicking the behavior
>> that P specifies.
>
> FALSE. P is NOT recursive, your H is recursive, this is plainly obvious
> to everyone except you.

My key unique discovery (back in 2016) was that every conventional
"pathological" input used to prove that the HP cannot be solved
specifies infinitely recursive simulation to every simulating halt decider.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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