On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 12:19:37 -0600
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:

> On 11/9/2022 11:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> Category mistakes are sentences such as ‘The number two is blue’,
> ‘The theory of relativity is eating breakfast’, or ‘Green ideas sleep
> furiously’. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-mistakes/

Again with the childish examples of category errors: I KNOW WHAT A
CATEGORY ERROR IS, DEAR.

/Flibble