On 9/26/22 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/26/2022 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩      // subscripts indicate unique finite strings
> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>
> Then these steps would keep repeating: (unless their simulation is aborted)

Note, you say "unless their simulation is aborted" but your defiition of
H DOES abort its simulation, thus this doesn't occur.

FAIL.

> Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then H2 simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩...
>
> This exact same behavior occurs when we replace H with a UTM.
>

But since H ISN'T a UTM, you can't assume that it is.

FAIL.

What ACTUALLY Happens is

H^.q0 <H^> -> H <H^> <H^>
// Copies its input, State "H" is a state of H^

H <H^> <H^> will then state to simulate its input.
It will simulate H^.q0 <H^> -> H <H^> <H^>

The H that the first H^ went to then aborts its simulation and goes to H^.Qn

That H^ then Halts.

Thus the input is non-halting.

If that copy of H DOESN'T go to H/H^.qn, then NO copy of H will do so
and H never answers.

FAIL.

You can't presume something happening that doesn't actually happen.

You are just proving your ignorance of how logic works.

You have wasted the last 18 years of your life because of your
self-iposed ignorance and buried your reputation under the pile of
idiotic lies you have made.