On 8/27/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/27/22 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/27/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/27/22 6:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/27/2022 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/27/22 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/27/2022 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2022 2:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 3:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2022 2:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 2:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2022 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2022 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 13:02:29 -0400
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/22 12:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cat got your tongue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or just caught wordless because you are seeing you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no answer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is just replying to change the subject line to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call you a troll and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say that I am clueless about software
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering. He really is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucktard who has got nothing of value to contribute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He is just proving how stupid he is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has sealed his eternal legacy at a Pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lying Idiot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, he is just admitting that there is no truth in his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements he is admitting that he is wrong, but won't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually admit it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By ignoring the people pointing out errors, he shows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he is only interested in himself and not what is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have pointed out all of the errors of all of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttals and instead of addressing these errors you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject only to get back to make these same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, point to an error I have made that you pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out to any source other than "yourself" as grounds for me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think you KNOW HOW to actually deal with a rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, I DON'T change the subject, I go to the core of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are talking about, and you object to that as I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't let you build up a bed of half truths to try to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make you ideas seem possibly plausable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless you ADMIT that you aren't talking about the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Theorm, all my comments are "On Topic" as I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just pointing out the basic definitions of the theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are the one that changes the subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *THIS IS TRUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEANING OF ITS WORDS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description always provides the actual behavior specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by this machine description.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct, and the machine description includes ALL the code
>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed by the program, including all subroutines/function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *THIS IS TRUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEANING OF ITS WORDS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performs a partial simulation of its input and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of this partial simulation correctly matches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern then the SHD halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can correctly report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, A CORRECT non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *THIS IS TRUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEANING OF ITS WORDS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A non-halting behavior pattern is correct when-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this behavior pattern proves that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to the SHD would never stop running unless the SHD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, proving you are a LIAR, and and idiot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A non-halting behavior pattern is a pattern that means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a correct and complete simulation could never stop after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing that pattern, in any machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it doesn't mean anything like that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have a reference for that, or are you going to just use
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect logic to try to make your point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Example 01:
>>>>>>>>>>>> H0 correctly determines that Infinite_Loop() never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001192](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001193](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001195](05)  6802110000 push 00001102
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000119a](05)  e8d3fbffff call 00000d72
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000119f](03)  83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a2](01)  50         push eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a3](05)  68a3040000 push 000004a3
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a8](05)  e845f3ffff call 000004f2
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011ad](03)  83c408     add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011b0](02)  33c0       xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011b2](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011b3](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000011b3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001192][00101ef8][00000000] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001193][00101ef8][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001195][00101ef4][00001102] 6802110000 push 00001102
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000119a][00101ef0][0000119f] e8d3fbffff call 00000d72
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H0: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:211fac
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001102][00211f9c][00211fa0] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001103][00211f9c][00211fa0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001105][00211f9c][00211fa0] ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001105][00211f9c][00211fa0] ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>>>>>>> H0: Infinite Loop Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   if (current->Simplified_Opcode == JMP)           // JMP
>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (current->Decode_Target <= current->Address) // upward
>>>>>>>>>>>>     if (traced->Address == current->Decode_Target) // to
>>>>>>>>>>>> this address
>>>>>>>>>>>>      if (Conditional_Branch_Count == 0)            // no escape
>>>>>>>>>>>>       return 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000119f][00101ef8][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a2][00101ef4][00000000] 50         push eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a3][00101ef0][000004a3] 68a3040000 push 000004a3
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a8][00101ef0][000004a3] e845f3ffff call 000004f2
>>>>>>>>>>>> Input_Halts = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011ad][00101ef8][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011b0][00101ef8][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011b2][00101efc][00100000] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011b3][00101f00][00000004] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(554) == 8 Pages
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting is a property of the MACHINE, that is the MACHINE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input specified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If halt deciders examined machines you would be correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders never examine machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders always examine finite string machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> descriptions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't the finite string the machine code?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I thought you defined your "finite string" to BE the machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code for your machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because a simulating halt decider is a pure simulator that
>>>>>>>>>>>> has extra features added to it a simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> that never aborts its simulation is simply a pure simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So does your H abort its simulation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it doesn't, then YES, it does a pure simulation and thus
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't stop until the input reaches a final state, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>> never answers for a non-halting input, or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if it DOES, then it can't be the source of what a pure
>>>>>>>>>>> simulator does, since it isn't one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pleae show me a program that does BOTH be a pure simulator
>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates the non-halting input until it (never) reaches
>>>>>>>>>>> the final state, and also aborts its simulation to return the
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting answer, at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A non-halting behavior pattern is correct when-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> matching this
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior pattern proves that the simulated input to the SHD
>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running unless the SHD aborted its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Proven wrong and illogical. You can't ask about
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of a program (the SHD) that isn't part of the
>>>>>>>>>>> system. The "non-aborting" SHD is NOT the SHD, so you
>>>>>>>>>>> condition just doesn't occur.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY PREDICTS WHAT THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS INPUT WOULD BE IF
>>>>>>>>>> IT NEVER ABORTED THE SIMULATION OF THIS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then it isn't a Halt Decider. PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A REAL Halt Decider decides on the behavior of the machine
>>>>>>>>> represented by its input, not the behavior of itself.
>>>>>>>> *Ah so that was my best wording*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) Every decider must compute the mapping from its input finite
>>>>>>>> string based on a semantic or syntactic property of this finite
>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and the propert of this finite string is the behavior of
>>>>>>> UTM(P,d)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No not at all. The decider could be determining whether or not an
>>>>>> input string contains: "A".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be deciding on a syntactic property.
>>>>>
>>>>> A semantic property is something like Halting of UTM(P,d).
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you don't understand what you can ask a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input
>>>>>>>> finite string to an accept or reject state based on the actual
>>>>>>>> behavior of its actual input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and that is whether UTM(P,d) Halts or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When H correctly predicts that its input would never stop running
>>>>>> unless it aborts its simulation of this input it is correctly
>>>>>> predicting whether or not the pure (AKA UTM) simulation of its
>>>>>> input would stop running because H is a pure (AKA UTM) simulator
>>>>>> when it does not abort its simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, Px(Px) is the simple counter example.
>>>>
>>>> You are contradicting yourself.
>>>>
>>>> The behavior of the input to H(P,P) when H does not aborts its
>>>> simulation of its input *is* the behavior of the pure simulation of
>>>> this input. That is proven on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but since H DOES abort its simulation, H is not a pure simulator,
>>
>> *THIS IS TRUE ON THE BASIS OF THE MEANING OF ITS WORDS*
>>
>> *A simulating halt decider that never aborts its simulation is a UTM*
>> thus when H correctly predicts that its simulated input would never
>> stop running unless H aborted this simulation it has correctly
>> predicted that a UTM simulation of this input would never halt.
>>
>>
>
> Right, if it NEVER abort.
>

(a) The UTM simulation of the input is the measure of the actual
behavior of this input.

(b) The behavior of the input to a SHD decider that never aborts its
simulation is the exact same behavior as a UTM simulation of this input.

(b) When a SHD decider correctly predicts that its input would never
stop running if it did not abort its simulation then it is correctly
predicting that the actual behavior of this input is non-halting.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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