On 6/22/22 9:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2022 7:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/22 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2022 7:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/22 7:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2022 6:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/22/22 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 7:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 7:45 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 13:16:36 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 2:55 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 04:10:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2022 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and P(P) reaches the ret instruction of H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0, so H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was incorrect in its mapping, since the behavior of P(P) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the behavior of H(P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz and others were aware that: A halt decider must compute
>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>> from its inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that is actually specified by these inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz and others made the false assumption that the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is actually specified by the inputs to a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as the direct execution of these inputs. They were
>>>>>>>>>>>> unaware of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this because no one previously fully examined a simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> ever before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially if that is what P calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and P is claimed to be built by the Linz template.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, either P isn't built right, or H isn't built fight, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You've dry-run P(P) and it doesn't halt. Additionally the
>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>> reports it as non-halting. So it's reasonable to assume that
>>>>>>>>>>> H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, when run, P(P) halts. So what are we to conclude?
>>>>>>>>>>> That "the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual behaviour that is actually specified by the inputs to
>>>>>>>>>>> a simulating
>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is not the same as the direct execution of these
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs"?
>>>>>>>>>> That is an actual immutable verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's your conclusion from your observations and reasoning.
>>>>>>>>> You've
>>>>>>>>> dry-run P(P), and it doesn't halt. You've run H on P(P), and it
>>>>>>>>> reports "non-halting".
>>>>>>>>> You've run P(P), and it halts.
>>>>>>>>> So one explanation is the one you've given but, as I said, that
>>>>>>>>> explanation has
>>>>>>>>> rather far-reaching consequences. In these circumstances, the
>>>>>>>>> sensible
>>>>>>>>> scientist (or I suppose mathematician, though I'm a scientist
>>>>>>>>> and not a
>>>>>>>>> mathematician) looks for alternative explanations which aren't
>>>>>>>>> quite as
>>>>>>>>> consequential.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is like looking for alternatives to 5 > 3
>>>>>>>> 5 < 3 wrong, 5 == 3, wrong 5 <= 3 wrong 5 >= 3 correct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would have far-reaching consequences. Before going
>>>>>>>>>>> there, maybe
>>>>>>>>>>> think up some simpler, alternative explanations and eliminate
>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>>> There are no alternatives to immutable verified facts. H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>> halts only
>>>>>>>>>> because H(P,P) correctly determines that its input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Technically competent software engineers would agree. On the
>>>>>>>>>> basis of
>>>>>>>>>> the much more complete details that I provided in my original
>>>>>>>>>> post.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When P(P) is called from main its behavior depends on the
>>>>>>>>>> return value
>>>>>>>>>> of H. When H is called from main P(P) cannot possibly depend
>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>> return value of H because the correctly emulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>> continues to remain stuck in infinite emulation until H aborts
>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That would be one consequence of going with your explanation.
>>>>>>>>> We'd have to
>>>>>>>>> say the behaviour of P(P) differs depending on caller. As I
>>>>>>>>> said, try simpler,
>>>>>>>>> less far-reaching explanations first.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    if (H(x, x))
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   H(P,P)==0 is provably correct
>>>>>>>> H1(P,P)==1 is provably correct.
>>>>>>>> H1(P,P) reports on the behavior of P(P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs to an
>>>>>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that
>>>>>>> is actually specified by these inputs. The actual behavior of the
>>>>>>> actual input to H(P,P) is non halting thus rejecting its input is
>>>>>>> necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have this wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A decider must compute the mapping that represents the FUNCTION it
>>>>>> is deciding, there is actually nothing about "behavior" in the
>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For a HALTING decider, that mapping is based on the HALTING
>>>>>> Behavior of the machine the input REPRESENTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you construe this as the actual behavior that the actual input
>>>>> specifies then this is correct otherwise this is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> If it isn't the acutual behavior, then it just isn't a Halt Decider,
>>>> but maybe your POOP decider.
>>>>
>>> The behavior of P(P) is provably not the actual behavior of the
>>> actual input to H(P,P). That you are insufficiently technically
>>> competent to verify this is far less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>
>> THen prove it.
>
> I have proved it dozens of times and every fake "rebuttal" simply
> ignores the proof.
>
>

Nope, you have claimed it, and given rhetorical arguments.

You don't even seem to understand what a PROOF is, so that may be your
problem.

I haven't once seen you start with a list of ACCEPTED truths in the
field and progressed from there. You ALWAYS throw in something that is
"true by the meaning of the words" that actually isn't because you don't
know the actual meaning of the words, and can't actually quote tem as
they apply to the field.

You don't understand that Natural Language is NOT the source of Truth,
but is actually one of the traps of logic that leads the unwary into error.

Truth comes out of FORMAL meaning and agreement with reality.