On 11/30/22 9:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/30/2022 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/29/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2022 10:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/22 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2022 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29/22 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2022 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/22 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2022 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/22 11:35 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2022 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> void D(void (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    D(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    H(D, D);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no D(D) ever stops running unless H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the simlation of its input conclusively proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the input to H(D,D) specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [Ignoring stack overflow]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above D(D) never stops running unless the H(D,D) that it
>>>>>>>>>>> invokes aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that is ok, and doesn't make that D non-halting by
>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what a Halt Decider needs to ddcide.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H(M,x) needs to return Halting if M(x) Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since D(D) halts, this means that H(D,D) needs to return Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing in that ask anything about D using a simulation that
>>>>>>>>>> happens to be aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just using wrong definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> D(D) correctly simulated by the above H(D,D) never stops
>>>>>>>>>>> running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, UTM(D,D) which is the DEFINITION of a "Correct
>>>>>>>>>> Simulation" will Halt. Thus the "Correct Simulation" of this
>>>>>>>>>> input WILL HALT.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The H you have provided never does a correct wsimulation, so
>>>>>>>>>> what it does is actually irrelevent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus no D(D) ever stops running unless an H(D,D) aborts the
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, since the H(D,D) that D calls DOES abort its simulation,
>>>>>>>>>> the H(D,D) simulating this D didn't actually NEED to abort its
>>>>>>>>>> simulation,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are not paying close enough attention to the exact words
>>>>>>>>> that I just said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If No H(D,D) in the universe ever stops simulating its input
>>>>>>>>> then no corresponding executed or simulated D(D) in the
>>>>>>>>> universe ever stops running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you are just PROVING that you are not working on the Halting
>>>>>>>> Problem, because that isn't the Halting Problem criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have already shown that people having a much deeper
>>>>>>> understanding than the mere rote memorization of textbooks
>>>>>>> understand that my adaptation of the halt status criteria is
>>>>>>> equivalent to the conventional notions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. You are perhaps DECEIVED them into giving assent to a
>>>>>> statement whixh appears to match the actual definition but doesn't
>>>>>> with your unusual meaning of the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He has written a textbook on the subject and many many papers,
>>>>> It is ridiculous to believe that:
>>>>> (a) He could be fooled into agreeing with a statement that he
>>>>>      did not fully understand.
>>>>> AND
>>>>> (b) Give me permission to quote his agreement with this statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not believe that Ben believed that he was fooled when Ben made
>>>>> the claim that he was fooled. Ben knows better than this. Ben
>>>>> simply ran out of options for rebuttal and thus grasped at straws.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and he agreed that if H shows that the CORRECT SIMULATION of
>>>> its input is non-halting, which is the simulation by a UTM. H only
>>>> does a correct simulaition if its simulation agrees with THAT
>>>> simulation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am only willing to have a mutually honest dialogue.
>>>
>>
>> I'm AM being Honest.
>>
>>> When I prove that you are incorrect on a point you never acknowledge
>>> that I proved that you are incorrect you simply change the subject.
>>
>> Except that you never have proven me wrong on any major point.
>>
>>>
>>> Acknowledge that he was not fooled and that he most likely fully
>>> understood what he agreed to or we cannot move on to the next point.
>>>
>>
>> "Fooled" may be a stronger word then needed. He does not interpret the
>> words the way you do. This is in part due to your enforced IGNORANCE
>> of the subject.
>
> Until you acknowledge that you were wrong and he was not fooled at all
> we cannot proceed.
>

No, untill YOU acknowledge that you don't understand the actual meaning
of the words, in context, that you have been using, you are just going
to continue to show your stupidity.

Remember, To Prof Sipser, "Correct Simulation" means a Complete and
Correct Simulation, just like a UTM.

Since even you admit that D(D) returns when H(D,D) answers 0, this means
that since you are claiming your "correct H" does answer 0, then the
D(D) of this problem Halts, and thuis the ONLY possible results of a
"Correct Simulation" of the input to H(D,D) is Halting, so it is
IMPOSSIBLE for H to "Correct Determine that a Correct Simulaiton of its
input would be non-halting". This applies whether you restrict that
correct simulation to being by H or not.

Thus, your arguement FAILS.

Yes, if H COULD prove that, it would be correct, because that means that
the D given it must have been some other machine that doesn't halt, but
your proof stipulates that it IS the machine that was described in his
proof, which DOES call the H that is claimed to be correct, and which by
your stipulation DOES abort its simulaition and return 0.

Thus, your H can NOT prove the needed condition, so its aborting is
proved to be in error.

Your problem seems to be that you just don't know what any of the
important words actually mean.

You are just continuing to mount the evidence of your own ignorance and
stupidity.