On 9/26/22 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/26/2022 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/26/22 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/26/2022 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/26/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/26/2022 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/26/22 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 12:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:42:02 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 12:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 12:15:15 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 11:05 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-09-26, Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, guy, but comp.lang.c is not the place to discuss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of thing. Why don't you try comp.theory ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Olcott postings will push you out of visibility?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If people would give me a fair and honest review I could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posting. You gave up on me before I could point out the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the diagonalization argument that you relied on for your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The diagonalization argument merely proves that no value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to P from its call to H can possibly be correct. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally ignores that the return value from H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unreachable by its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated P caller when H is based on a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This makes it impossible for P to do the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decides.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) x86utm operating system
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) complete x86 emulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Several halt deciders and their inputs contained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/2022_09_07.zip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep making the same mistake again and again. H IS NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SUPPOSED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TO BE RECURSIVE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) is not recursive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your H is recursive because P isn't recursive and yet you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have to abort
>>>>>>>>>>>> your infinite recursion: the recursion is caused by your H
>>>>>>>>>>>> and not by
>>>>>>>>>>>> P.  Nowhere in any halting problem proof does it state that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the call to
>>>>>>>>>>>> H by P is recursive in nature BECAUSE H IS NOT SUPPOSED TO
>>>>>>>>>>>> EXECUTE P, H
>>>>>>>>>>>> IS SUPPOSED TO *ANALYSE* P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nowhere in any HP proof (besides mine) is the idea of a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) ever thought all the way through.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because the proof doesn't care at all how the decider got the
>>>>>>>>>> answer,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the definition of a UTM specifies that the correct
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a machine description provides the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the underlying machine whenever any simulating
>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider must abort its simulation to prevent infinite
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation it is necessarily correct to report that this
>>>>>>>>>>> input does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, which means it CAN'T be a UTM, and thus *ITS*
>>>>>>>>>> simulation does not define the "behavior of the input".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the correct simulation of the input is its
>>>>>>>>> actual behavior. That H correctly predicts that its correct
>>>>>>>>> simulation never stops running unless aborted conclusively
>>>>>>>>> proves that this correctly simulated input would never reach
>>>>>>>>> its own final state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the behavior the halting problem is asking for is the
>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only within the context that no one ever bothered to think the
>>>>>>> application of a simulating halt decider all the way through.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the behavior
>>>>>> of the Actual Machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That definition is made obsolete by a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the definition IS the definition.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get to change it.
>>>>
>>> I created a new concept that makes earlier ideas about this obsolete:
>>>
>>> Because the definition of a UTM specifies that the correct simulation
>>> of a machine description provides the actual behavior of the
>>> underlying machine whenever any simulating halt decider must abort
>>> its simulation to prevent infinite simulation it is necessarily
>>> correct to report that this input does not halt.
>>>
>>> Because the above is verified as correct on the basis of the meaning
>>> of its words it is irrefutable.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but H isn't a UTM, so its simulation doesn't matter.
>>
>
> Unless you can specify that material difference between the two, that
> would seem to prove that you are technically incompetent.

H doesn't correctly repoduce the behavior of a non-halting input.

Thus, it isn't a UTM.

>
> So far none of the people that I have spoken with in any of the reviews
> of my work know these things any deeper than learned-by-rote.
>

Your problem is you are working from a position of ignorance because you
never learned the basics.

You don't even understand that H can't be a UTM, becauxe it doesn't do
what a UTM is defined to do.

You are just proving your stupidity based on self-enforced ignorance.

You have wasted the last 18 years of your life and buried your
reputaiton with your idiotic lies.