On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 11:24:42 -0600
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/9/2022 11:19 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 18:13:04 -0600
> > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/8/2022 5:36 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 15:35:06 -0600
> >>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/8/2022 2:53 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 11:40:18 -0600
> >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/8/2022 11:24 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 09:52:22 -0600
> >>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/8/2022 5:13 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 5:23:36 PM UTC, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [Title: A PhD computer scientist spent three days in chat
> >>>>>>>>> reviewing my paper]
> >>>>>>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> They could not understand why H(D,D)==0 and H1(D,D)==1 are
> >>>>>>>>>> both correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The reason the simulated input to H(D,D) correctly has
> >>>>>>>>>> different behavior than the simulated input to H1(D,D) is
> >>>>>>>>>> that H(D,D) D calls H(D,D) thus putting itself in recursive
> >>>>>>>>>> simulation. H1(D,D) D calls H(D,D) yet this does not put
> >>>>>>>>>> itself in recursive simulation. One cannot correctly simply
> >>>>>>>>>> ignore these differences and form any valid rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If an input specifies a pathological relationship to its
> >>>>>>>>>> simulator this relationship must be simulated or the
> >>>>>>>>>> simulation is not correct. They maintained that every
> >>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of an input must derive the same
> >>>>>>>>>> behavior for this input thus simply ignoring the case
> >>>>>>>>>> where an input is defined to have a pathological
> >>>>>>>>>> relationship to its simulator.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That seems much the same as everyone else here has been
> >>>>>>>>> telling you. Does that mean you're beginning to accept it
> >>>>>>>>> might be right?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/24/2022 6:19 PM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>>>>> > On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 12:10:34 AM UTC+1, olcott
> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> >> If a simulating halt decider continues to correctly
> >>>>>>>> >> simulate its input until it correctly matches a
> >>>>>>>> >> non-halting behavior pattern then this SHD is
> >>>>>>>> >> necessarily correct when it aborts its simulation and
> >>>>>>>> >> reports non-halting.
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>> > Yes, *If* a simulating halt decider continues to
> >>>>>>>> > correctly simulate its input until it *correctly*
> >>>>>>>> > matches a non- halting behaviour pattern then this SHD
> >>>>>>>> > is correct when it aborts its simulation and reports
> >>>>>>>> > non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If everyone every where agreed that 3 + 5 = 65.7 I would know
> >>>>>>>> they are all liars. It is conclusively proven beyond all
> >>>>>>>> possible doubt that D correctly simulated by H cannot
> >>>>>>>> possibly stop running unless aborted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ben has admitted this, and two of my friends that have
> >>>>>>>> masters degrees in computer science verified this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is shown more clearly as PP correctly simulated by HH on
> >>>>>>>> pages 5-6
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem
> >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When the input is defined to have a pathological relationship
> >>>>>>>> to its simulator this changes the behavior of the simulated
> >>>>>>>> input such that its correct simulation and its direct
> >>>>>>>> execution have different behavior.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider need not pay attention to this
> >>>>>>>> difference it only needs to compute the mapping from its
> >>>>>>>> input to an accept or reject state on the basis of its
> >>>>>>>> correct simulation of its input.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is verified that the simulation is correct in that there
> >>>>>>>> is a line-by-line exact correspondence between the simulated
> >>>>>>>> lines and the x86 source code of PP.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> D simulated by UTM1(D,D) where D is defined to call UTM1(D,D)
> >>>>>>>> will remain stuck in infinitely recursive simulation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are correct: there is a category error in [Strachey 1965]
> >>>>>>> and associated proofs which manifests as nested simulation
> >>>>>>> when the halt decider is of the simulating type. Now what?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If a Turing computable function H can correctly recognize that
> >>>>>> its input D correctly simulated by itself is calling itself in
> >>>>>> recursive simulation then H can stop simulating D and correctly
> >>>>>> reject D as non-halting. This is conclusively proven at the C
> >>>>>> level even if PhD computer scientists disagree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I still think mapping the manifestation of a category error to a
> >>>>> halting decision of non-halting is artificial at best. One can
> >>>>> simply refute the halting problem proofs by demonstrating the
> >>>>> presence of the category error alone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any correctly simulated input that only stops running when its
> >>>> simulation is aborted is non-halting by tautology.
> >>>>
> >>>> For it to be an actual category error the correctly simulated
> >>>> input would have to neither stop running nor not stop running
> >>>> when its simulation is aborted.
> >>>>
> >>>> What time is is (yes or no) ? Is a category error.
> >>>>
> >>>> How many feet long is the color of your car? Is a category error.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the integer arithmetic sum of mustard and house bricks?
> >>>> Is a category error.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this sentence true or false: "This sentence is not true." Is a
> >>>> category error.
> >>>
> >>> No. The category error is the self reference with the two
> >>> categories being the decider and the input.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> A category error can only be miscategorization (putting things in
> >> the wrong category). Saying that an animal is a category of office
> >> building is a category error.
> >
> > Yes that is an example of a category error and another example of a
> > category error is the self reference in [Strachey 1965] and
> > associated proofs with the categories being the input and the
> > decider: the input cannot pass itself to the decider.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> In your case "cannot" means {should not} and thus not an actual
> category error of {it is utterly impossible} for D to call H with the
> machine description of itself.

Wrong, it is a category error (self reference) which will manifest as
nested simulation if the decider is of the simulating type.

>
> It is utterly impossible for the category of living creature {animal}
> to be an element of the set of {office buildings}.

Why do you keep giving me fucktarded examples of category errors? I know
what a category error is but I am not sure you do, at least fully, as
you cannot see how the self reference in [Strachey 1965] and associated
proofs is a category error.

/Flibble