On 11/30/2022 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/30/22 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/30/2022 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/30/22 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2022 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> OK so you don't want to talk anymore, that is fine with me.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will point out that I have nothing to prove, as the Halting Theory,
>>> as proved, is on my side.
>>>
>>> Everything I have said, is just a restating of the accepted Truth.
>>>
>>
>> You refuse to acknowledge any of the points where I am proved to be
>> correct because you (as everyone else here) are only interested in
>> rebuttal, thus have no interest what-so-ever in an honest dialogue.
>>
>> This is intolerable.
>>
>
> Becausse you HAVEN'T proved them, because you just don't understand what
> you are talking about. If you start with incorrect definitions, you just
> can't get anywhere.
>

Until you acknowledge that you were wrong and he was never fooled you
will get no more words from me.

--
Copyright 2022 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer