On 9/3/2022 12:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/22 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2022 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions, your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are self-contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider is self-contradictory, in that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to build anything which meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new insight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this behavior is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the reasoning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind the answer all those not understanding these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things cannot simply baselessly disagree. All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement is thus required to have a basis. This way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people are not lead astray by a bunch of baseless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement, they see that the disagreement has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID reasoning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own understanding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, no one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE well
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined meanings, so you either need to use that meaning,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or you really need to give your idea a new name (maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basd on the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about the PO-Halting Problem, with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO-Halting Decider, so you counter example doesn't affect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual Halting Problem, so it is clear you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the definition is self-contradictory. You're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using altered definition that you aren't providing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor you
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would have different behavior than the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P) this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never
>>>>>>>>>> stops running unless H aborts the simulation of this input is
>>>>>>>>>> merely another way of saying that the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>> simulation of this input by H never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its input
>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless H0 aborts the simulation of this
>>>>>>>> input is merely another way of saying that the correct and
>>>>>>>> complete simulation of this input by H0 never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Strawman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example is
>>>>>> not representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>>>>>> quantification.
>>>>>
>>>>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL inputs
>>>>> (or at least P, which isn't the input you showed it worked for).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>>>>>> ∀ machine description P
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any
>>>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running unless
>>>>>> this simulation was aborted by this SHD is merely another way of
>>>>>> saying that the correct and complete simulation of this input by
>>>>>> this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider in
>>>>> the way you are doing it.
>>>>
>>>> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its decider
>>>> *NITWIT*
>>>
>>> Right, but your "example" didn't, and this dependency is the case
>>> that breaks your "proof" and definitions.
>> The correct simulation of the input by H(P,P) is the simulation of
>> this input at the same point in the execution trace where H is invoked.
>>
>> (2 + 3) * 5   !=   2 + (3 * 5) // order matters.
>>
>>
>
> Red Herring. Simulate(P,P) is ALWAYS the same (for a given P)
> irrespective of "where" that simulation is done, at least if H is a
> computation, and if it isn't it can't be a decider.
>
Although H must be a computation all sequences of configurations that do
not halt are not computations**. The behavior of H is the same no matter
where it is invoked.

On 9/4/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/4/22 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/4/2022 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/4/22 12:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/3/2022 12:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/3/22 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your H just isn't a Halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then at least one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a halt decider is self-contradictory, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is impossible to build anything which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meets the definition. This has been proved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official definitions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insight on that another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a halt decider is self-contradictory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guaranteed to derive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD) must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input is merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that a halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the answer all those not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding these things cannot simply baselessly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree. All disagreement is thus required to have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a basis. This way people are not lead astray by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of baseless disagreement, they see that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreement has no basis and reject it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning, starting from ACCEPTED definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, no one can help you with your logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well defined meanings, so you either need to use that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning, or you really need to give your idea a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name (maybe basd on the common name with a modifier).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the accepted definition, you can call it PO-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are talking about the PO-Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a PO-Halting Decider, so you counter example
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem, so it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear you haven't proven what you claim to have proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved that the definition is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're not disputing that proof?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly using altered definition that you aren't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an incorrect basis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d) by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) would have different behavior than the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P) this cannot simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stops running unless H aborts the simulation of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is merely another way of saying that the correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of this input by H never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a tautology:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input would never stop running unless H0 aborts the
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of this input is merely another way of saying
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the correct and complete simulation of this input by H0
>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Strawman.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single example
>>>>>>>>>> is not representative of the entire class of all such examples.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
>>>>>>>>>> quantification.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL
>>>>>>>>> inputs (or at least P, which isn't the input you showed it
>>>>>>>>> worked for).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>> ∀ machine description P
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any
>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running
>>>>>>>>>> unless this simulation was aborted by this SHD is merely
>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of this input by this SHD would never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the decider
>>>>>>>>> in the way you are doing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its
>>>>>>>> decider *NITWIT*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, but your "example" didn't, and this dependency is the case
>>>>>>> that breaks your "proof" and definitions.
>>>>>> The correct simulation of the input by H(P,P) is the simulation of
>>>>>> this input at the same point in the execution trace where H is
>>>>>> invoked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2 + 3) * 5   !=   2 + (3 * 5) // order matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Red Herring. Simulate(P,P) is ALWAYS the same (for a given P)
>>>>> irrespective of "where" that simulation is done, at least if H is a
>>>>> computation, and if it isn't it can't be a decider.
>>>>>
>>>> Although H must be a computation all sequences of configurations
>>>> that do not halt are not computations**. The behavior of H is the
>>>> same no matter where it is invoked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, so H(P,P) is ALWAYS the same, to return a 0 in finite time, by
>>> the H you claim to be correct.
>>>
>>>> The behavior of P need not be (and indeed is not) the same. When P
>>>> is invoked from main its behavior depends on the return value of H.
>>>> When P is correctly simulated by H the return value from H is
>>>> unreachable from every simulated P. This conclusively proves that
>>>> the execution of P from main() and the correct simulation of P by H
>>>> are not computationally equivalent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, by the construction of P, P will ALWAYS behave the same.
>>>
>> All of your rebuttals are simply false assumptions and nothing more.
>> I claim that
>>
>>     "When P is correctly simulated by H the return value from
>>      H is unreachable from every simulated P."
>
> SO? There is no requirement that H is able to see the resuts of the call
> inside the input it is simulating.
>
> The ACTUAL behavior of the input to H(P,P) is DEFINED as the behavior of
> P(P) or Simulate(P,P). The fact that H can't determine that is H's fault.
>
> Do you disagree that the CORRECT answer is based on the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
> of the ACUTAL INPUT?
>
> H's inability to determine that is WHY it gets the wrong answer, not an
> excuse for it to do so.
>
>>
>> When you claim that I am incorrect it is merely an empty assertion
>> utterly bereft of supporting reasoning.
>
> No, you LITERALLY are making an empty assertion, as you are asserting
> something that never occurs.
>
> There is NO H that does a complete and correct simulation and returns an
> answer. We can even argue that it doesn't do a correct simulation since
> the last step of the simulation has an error as it presumes the wrong
> behavior of the call to H that it encounter (you can debate if this is
> an incorrect simulation or just unsound logic).
>
>>
>> A simulating halt decider continues to simulate its input until it
>> correctly matches a correct infinite behavior pattern.
>
> Then why does you H abort too soon, as shown by the fact that the
> complete simulation Simualte(P,P) does halt when H(P,P) returns 0?
>
> Just says that your H doesn't even meet your own definition.
>
>>
>> void Px(ptr x)
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = Hx(x, x);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", Hx(Px, Px));
>> }
>>
>> In order for me to actually be wrong you must be able to show that
>> some simulating halt decider Hx could be defined such that its correct
>> simulation of its input Px reaches the final state of Px in a finite
>> number of steps.
>>
>
> Nope. H(P,P) is wrong if its answer doesn't match the REQURIED
> definition of a Halting Decider.
>
> Since P(P) Halts, when H(P,P) returns 0, that means that answer is
> WRONG, BY DEFINITION.
>
> You are just showing that you aren't (and likely never have actually
> been) working on the Halting Problem.
>
> There is no requirement that some decider is able to see the right
> answer. In fact, the proof shows that such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> FAIL.
>
> Just showing how ignorant you are.
>