On 9/28/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>

I agree that the correct simulation of a single step is the correct
simulation of a single step.

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

That would require that a single step of the input IS the input, which
isn't true.

Your claiming it is just proves you don't know what you are talking
about, and your consistant misrepresentation of what others say shows
that you are just a pathological liar.

And that you are totally stupid, as it is clear to ANYONE (with a brain)
that this is what you are doing.

That you don't see this, means what it means, that you don't have a
brain (at least not one that works).

You are KILLED your reputation for all time by your repeated lying,
showing that you are just a pathological lying idiot.

Sorry, you have wasted the last 18 years of your life, but this was all
self-imposed by your decision to choose not to learn the material of the
subjects you decided to talk about.

YOU HAVE FAILED.