On 9/22/22 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/22/2022 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/22/22 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Except that the behavior IS fully described by the finite string
>> description and not just "In the mind".
> This is easily proven false on the basis of the correct simulation of
> this finite string by the SHD.
>

Which is a LIE, because the SHD that answers 0 to H(P,P) DOESN'T do a
COMPLETE simulation, but stops because it INCORRECTLY assumes that
H(P,P) will never return.

The SHD that does simulate AN input completely showing that its input
doesn't halt, is simulationg a DIFFERENT input, because it is calling a
different H than the one that the actual one does.

You have provided that ACTUAL complete simulation of this input and
showed that it halts.

Thus, you are just proving that you just are ignorant about what you are
talking about, that you just lie about these things, and are just too
stupid to know what you are doing.