On 9/28/22 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Because you are a despicable lying bastard you change the subject to a
> different point before any point is ever made and validated.

No, I didn't/

>
> The only point being made here is that a correct simulation is not
> required to be a complete simulation. If a single step is correctly
> simulated then this single step is simulated correctly.
>

So, the single step being simulated correctly does NOT mean that the
input was simulated correct.

Being correct about a part does not mean you are correct about the whole.

THis is just your fallacy of proof by example taken to the nth degree.

Are you just your thumb? (maybe your thumb is smarter than you since it
doesn't include your broken brain).

The ONLY simulation define for Turing Machine is the UTM which does a
complete simulation.

By the STRICT definition of "Simulation":
A simulation is a model that mimics the operation of an existing or
proposed system

Only a COMPLETE simulation fully meets that definition.

A Partial simulation does NOT "mimic" the behavior of the actual input,
since the actual input won't stop before it reaches its end if run.

You are just proving your ignorance and lack of actually understanding
what you are talking about, but that you are being INTENTIONALLY
deceptive by yours inaccurate definitons.

YOU HAVE FAILED to provide ANY useful evidence for your position, but
just proved you are a total IDIOT.