On 12/1/22 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/1/2022 5:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/1/22 12:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/22 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you aren't reading?
>>>>
>>>> I ppointed out that "fooled" may be not quite the right word, as it
>>>> isn't so much you "tricked" him into agreeing to a false statement,
>>>> but that you don't understand the statement that you wrote, because
>>>> you don't understand the basics of the language of the field.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You must specifically admit that your were wrong.
>>
>>
>> Since I am not, that won't happen.
>>
>
> Acknowledge that [you were wrong when you said] he was fooled or we
> cannot move on to the next point.
>
> You must say this words: "I was wrong when I said he was fooled."

No, because in a real sense he was, because you use a deceptive statment
which you take to mean something that he doesn't.

>
>> YOU need to specifically admit that you are, and always have been, WRONG.
>>>
>>>> Yes, the statement is "correct" when interpreted by the actual
>>>> contextual meaning of the words,
>>>
>>> That is progress.
>>
>> If you think so.
>>
>> You still don't understand what he sees that statement to mean, so you
>> are no closer to proving your version.
>
> If you cannot admit your mistakes then you have not shown that you will
> commit to an honest dialogue. I am not willing to tolerate anything
> besides an honest dialogue.

BUT I AM NOT THE ONE WHO HAS MADE A MISTAKE.

THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, becaue you don't know the meaning of the words.

If you point out exactly where I am wrong with my explaination, and can
point out an actual reliable source to back it up, maybe you can try to
convince me.

So try to show that my explation of what HE would mean by the statement
isn't what he would take it to mean, or how that is actually compatible
with your meaning.

Remember, the key point is that to people in the field, "Correct
Simulation" mean corresponding the the actual FULL run of the actual
machine with that EXACT input, which even you have agreed Halts.

You claim it somehow can be match with something that says non-halting.
THAT is a LIE.

Your refusal to see that, shows you are just STUPID.

You have never shown that your interpreation has ANY merit by the
definitions of the field, and in fact point that out by trying to use
definitions of basically unrelated fields.

I will note that "Software Engineering" is a VERY different subject that
Computation Theory, looking at VERY different sorts of problems.

You don't seem to understand that, because you are too stupid.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> where "correctly simulated" means showing the behavior of the direct
>>>> execution of the program, which is what it DOES mean in the field.
>>>>
>>>> YOU are the one "Fooled", and you did it to yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you are just making yourself into a laughing stock as you
>>>> reveal how "dumb" you are.
>>>>
>>>> Any reputable journal that in checking on things finds these threads
>>>> is just going to trash can your paper, as you have so discredited
>>>> your reputation.
>>>
>>
>