On 9/28/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/28/22 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/28/2022 7:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/28/22 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2022 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/28/22 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/28/2022 6:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *No it is not and Mike already corrected you on this*
>>>>>>> You stubbornly insistent on lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ONLY definition of "simulation" for Turing Machines that I
>>>>>> know of is the UTM, and it only does a complete simulation of its
>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Care to provide a reliable source that defines a "Correct
>>>>>> Simulation" as to include a partial one that is applicable here?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you weren't a despicable lying bastard you would already
>>>>> acknowledge that 1 to ∞ simulated steps of a machine description is
>>>>> necessarily computationally equivalent to a corresponding 1 to ∞
>>>>> steps of direct execution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Infinite steps, or more steps than it takes to reach the final
>>>> state, yes.
>>>>
>>> On 9/28/2022 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>  > *If you weren't a despicable lying bastard* you would
>>>  > already acknowledge that 1 to ∞ simulated steps of
>>>  > a machine description is necessarily computationally
>>>  > equivalent to a corresponding 1 to ∞ steps of direct
>>>  > execution.
>>>  >
>>>
>>> *The problem is that you are a despicable lying bastard*
>>> Trying to pretend that you didn't see
>>>
>>> 1 to ∞ simulated steps
>>> 1 to ∞ simulated steps
>>> 1 to ∞ simulated steps
>>> 1 to ∞ simulated steps
>>>
>>
>> So ARE you claiming that all the Px are the same input, and thus the
>> behavior of Px doesn't depend on the Hx it calls?
>>
> None of the Px elements of the infinite set of Hx/Px pairs reaches its
> final state and halts when 1 to ∞ steps of Px are simulated (or directly
> executed) by some Hx.
>
> This is enough for anyone with sufficient technical competence that is
> not a despicable lying bastard to acknowledge that Px is non-halting.
>
>

No, it isn't. An infinite number of incomplete answers does not add up
to a correct answer.

Since there is only ONE "simulation" in that set of the needed input,
and that stops before it reaches the end, and doesn't approach the
"infinte" number of steps that you claim/need, you have just refuted
your own statement.

YOU FAIL.

You are just proving your ignorance, and the fact you keep diverting
with strawmen just proves you are being intentionally deceptive.

You have DESTORYED your reputation and buried it under the "infinite"
pile of falsehoods that you have made. You have wasted the last 18 years
of your life and sealed you fate to be know as a pathologically lying idiot.

Sorry, but you seem to be too dumb to even see that you are wrong.