On 5/23/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an
>>>>>>>>> infinite
>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite
>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are
>>>>>>>> different,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic,
>>>>>> then Pn,
>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the
>>>>> topic.
>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H
>>>>>> you keep
>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how
>>>>>> much is
>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string
>>>>> named H
>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>
>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>> No we will not.
>>
>> We all know exactly why not.  Because by being clear about which H and
>> which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and
>> makes it clear exactly where the problem is.  So as Ben has said,
>> clarity is your enemy.
>>
>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.  Failure to
>> explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as
>> not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is
>> correct.  Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a
>> failure to explain.
>>
>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>
>
> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> be brown.
>
> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>
> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.

And, does your FIXED H match the code of Ha or not? If it is definied to
abort it will.

If it does, what is your problem with calling it Ha?

The key to Hb, is that it is based on the same basic algorithm has your
H, but defined ups the value used to decide when to stop by enough to
see the Halting in the input Pa, Pa

What is wrong with looking at that variation, it DOES exist?

Simulate, is the definitial CORRECT simulator, needed by your arguement
that we define Halting by the CORRECT simulaiton of the input to H(P,P).

What is wrong with that?

You argues they are off topic, as all they do is PROVE that your
arguement is flawed and is neglecting things, and using sloppy definitions.

IE, the PROVE you to be decietful and a LIAR.

>
>> If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have
>> Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that
>> because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes
>> no sense.
>>
>>
>
>