On 9/26/2022 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/26/22 9:55 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.
>>>
>>
>> The concept of a UTM defines that the correct simulation of a machine
>> description provides the actual behavior of this machine description
>> thus the correct x86 emulation of the machine language of a C function
>> also provides the actual behavior of this function.
>>
>
> Not  C *Function*, but C *PROGRAM*. Functions that call something
> outside themselves are NOT "Computation" by themselves, but only when
> you INCLUDE what they call.
>

None-the-less we still must maintain the line-of-demarcation between
what is being tested: P, and what is doing the testing: H.

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