On 9/21/2022 7:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/21/22 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/21/2022 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/21/22 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/21/2022 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/21/22 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/21/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 10:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 8:10 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demented crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 7:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an explanation of a possible new insight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the halting problem provided in the language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of software engineering. Technical computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science terms are explained using software
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering terms. No knowledge of the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the conventional “pathological” input (that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the opposite of whatever the halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides) is the first argument to a simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider then this input becomes decidable as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifying infinitely recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't as if H is a Decider, it BE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION has finite behavior so NO CALL to it can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be "infinite"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another way that we can say this is that P specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because P DOES reach its final state when it is run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // H(P,P) does not reach a final state when it is run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    x(y);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I keep correcting you and you keep dishonestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgetting these corrections. *That is the main reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it seems you may be a liar*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The liar is the one who uses H as a unique name to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualify different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions. Make up your mind about how H is supposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be an halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider and you'll see that you cannot avoid Richard's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your silliness. Which the main argument for such an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist in the first place. Word salad won't help you much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the liar, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every correct halt decider H must predict the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own direct execution of its input even though it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not perform a direct execution of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that statement is illogical because it asks what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would happen if something does something that it doesn't do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider can correctly predict that an infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts without executing it. That you act like you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep forgetting this is either dishonest or you actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keep forgetting it, thus dementia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but if the loop isn't infinite (or not even a loop),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is incorrect to predict that it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you AGREE that P(P) will Halt if H(P,P) returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of every input P to every H that either simulates or
>>>>>>>>>>>> executes its input no H ever returns anything to P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>> To an accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, the input is the representation of P and its input P
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is the actual behavior of the actual executed or simulated
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which means, for H(P,P) the running of P(P) or UTM(P,P) as
>>>>>>>>> independent computaitons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those Halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H is only allowed to report on the behavior that it sees.
>>>>>>>> H is NOT allowed to report on behavior that it does not see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope. That isn't the definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure it is. A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input
>>>>>> to an accept or reject state based on the actual behavior
>>>>>> specified by the direct execution of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right *THE* not *ITS* direct execution of its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the behavior of executing its input as a totally
>>>>> independent machine.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the input thus not a direct execution of the input:
>>>>>> int main() { P(P); }
>>>>>
>>>>> No, That IS the direct execution of its input per your model.
>>>>
>>>> Because this is not the actual input to H, and its behavior is not
>>>> the same as the behavior of this actual input to H then it violates
>>>> the principle that a halt decider must report on the actual behavior
>>>> of its actual input.
>>>
>>> No, it IS its actual input, as specified by its representation.
>> All that "representation" actually means is that the halt decider
>> examines a finite string encoding of a Turing Machine thus not the
>> Turing machine itself.
>>
>> It certainly does not mean that the halt decider must examine the
>> mental idea that you have about what the input does.
>>
>
> Except that it does.
No competent software engineer or computer scientist will agree that
ideas held within the mind that are not encoded as finite strings are
legitimate inputs to any computation.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer