On 9/28/22 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/27/22 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/27/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/27/2022 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/27/22 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/27/2022 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/27/22 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/2022 8:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/22 9:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/2022 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/22 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/27/2022 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/22 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/26/2022 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is designed to predict the result of 1 to ∞ correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps, thus predict the behavior of a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H does correctly predict the actual behavior of 1 to ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps of P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since we have shown that if H(P,P) returns 0, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is false and you know it so you are a liar for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500th time*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You know that you are not referring to the behavior of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I am refering to the input to H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) represents the computation P(P), or your
>>>>>>>>>>>> P isn't the required "impossible Program".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot find a competent source that agrees that the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of the input is not provided by the correct
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correct AND COMPLETE simulation of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So like I said you have no source, you and most other are only
>>>>>>>>> going by learned-by-rote so when a new issue comes up your
>>>>>>>>> flounder. The others here not going by learned-by-rote are
>>>>>>>>> going by total cluelessness.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about the Linz definition of a Halt Decider, the one YOU
>>>>>>>> quote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He does not say that the correct simulation of an input does not
>>>>>>> provide the actual behavior of this input. You will find no
>>>>>>> competent person that will disagree with me on this point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But he DOES say that the DEFINITION of the right answer is the
>>>>>> behavior of the machine that input describes, so THAT is the
>>>>>> behavior that counts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> People that know these things more deeply than learned-by-rote will
>>>>> understand that my alternative definition is sound.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is WRONG, since it doesn't match.
>>>>
>>>> That is like saying Two is the right answer to the question of How
>>>> many cats you have, when you have one cats and one dog, because dogs
>>>> are really pretty much like a cat.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We can know that it is sound by simply knowing that the correct
>>>>> simulation of the input does provide the actual behavior of this
>>>>> input. We know this on the basis of the definition of a UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The CORRECT AND COMPLETE.
>>>>
>>>> Not being complete, it CAN'T show the actual behavior.
>>>>
>>>> That is like getting off the highway at the second exit, well before
>>>> you get into the city, and announce that traffic is clear into the
>>>> city, because you didn't see any traffic.
>>>>
>>>> You are just PROVING our stupidity.
>>>
>>> Mike already corrected you on this.
>>> The correct simulation of 1 to ∞ steps of the input *is*
>>> computationally equivalent to the direct execution of 1 to ∞ steps of
>>> the input.
>>>
>>> How can you disagree with this besides lying?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, what SINGLED EXACT INPUT have you done this for?
>>
>> Remember, exact of your members of Px are DIFFERENT!
>>
>> You only "correctly simulate" a given input once, for a single number
>> between 1 and infinity, so you never have a valuation of 1 to infinite
>> steps for any input except those that are basd on an Hx that never
>> stops them, and thos Hx never abort.
>>
>
> You cannot find a competent source that agrees that the actual behavior
> of the input is not provided by the correct simulation of this input
> therefore
>

Except that the problem is that "Correct Simulation" is generally taken
to be a Correct and Complete Simulation, which your H does do.

Are you REALLY going to assert that you can ALWAYS tell the behavior of
a machine from a partial simulation of its behavior? (Yes, SOME patterns
can be predicted, but NOT that of P(P)).

Go head, MAKE THAT CLAIM, and show yourself to truely be the idiot you
are, it is easy to disprove.

> the behavior of the simulated input is the required measure for a
> simulating halt decider cannot be refuted.
>

Right, the "Correct" simulation, which is the Correct AND COMPLETE
simulation, which is the behavior of an ACTUAL UTM.

UTM(P,P) has been proved to Halt if H(P,P) returns 0.

Thus, your H is proved wrong.

You are just proving your ignorance of the field, and the fact that it
is self-inflicted just shows how idiotic you are.