On 9/28/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Exactly what a despicable lying bastard would say.
> That one step of an input is simulated correctly DOES MEAN
> That one step of an input is simulated correctly.
>
>

But doesn't mean that the INPUT has been simulated correctly.

After all, the whole is different than the part.

Or, do you think you are nothing more than your thumb?

You are just proving your ignorance.