On 8/27/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/27/22 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/27/2022 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/27/22 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, the SHD in (c) can't be the SHD in (b) because the one in (c)
>>> aborts its simulation, while the one in (b) does not.
>>>
>>
>> (a) When a SHD correctly predicts that its simulated input would never
>> stop running unless it aborts its simulation
>>
>> (b) it is also predicting the behavior of the UTM simulation of this
>> same input
>>
>> (c) thus is also predicting the actual behavior of this input.
>>
>> (a)(b)(c) are merely different ways of saying the same thing.
>>
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> First, that gives you the behavior if H WAS a UTM, but that isn't what H
> is defined as, it is defined to be a Decider, so REQUIRED to answer in
> finite time, while a UTM doesn't.
>
> Of course, this only makes a difference if the input calls H, but in
> this case it does.
>
> Thus H is determining the wrong result.
>
> Second, the definition of Halting is NOT does the decider need to abort,
> but will the machine run to a final state.
>

You are losing track of all the progress that we made: The definition of
halting is: A UTM simulation of this input reaches its final state.

When a SHD decider correctly predicts the behavior of a UTM simulation
of its input this correctly predicts the actual behavior of this input.

When a SHD decider correctly predicts that its simulated input would
never stop running unless it aborted this simulation it correctly
predicts the behavior of a UTM simulation of this input because the
behavior of a UTM simulation of this input is the exact same behavior of
a SHD that never aborts.

(a)(b)(c) really are three different ways of saying the exact same thing.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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