On 9/28/2022 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/28/22 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/28/2022 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Maybe Electrical Engineers are clueless about tautologies?
>>
>>
>
> Not the problem. But it appears that Olcotts are too stupid to
> understand simple logic.
>

That you won't even agree to tautologies means that you are on the wrong
side of righteousness. You are on the side of the adversary.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer