On 6/26/2023 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be false for everyone because the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, there isn't a single instance of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong verse point out that it doesn't prove what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATEMENT that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see
>>>>>>>>> below)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid
>>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL
>>>>>>> PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to
>>>>>> any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that
>>>>>> X returns?
>>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>>> (b) No
>>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is
>>>>> trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to use
>>>>> decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of what X says.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>>
>>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many words,
>>> clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>>
>>
>> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could be
>> said more clearly.
>>
>
> The problem is you misuse words so often, the only way you could be
> clearer is to stop doing that.
>
> You also "invent" words that don't have accpted meanings without
> definit=ng them.

On 6/26/23 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be false for everyone because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact same word-for-word question is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reference what it is talking about, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, there isn't a single instance of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong verse point out that it doesn't prove what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATEMENT that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The Halting Question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable
>>>>>>>>>> (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid
>>>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL
>>>>>>>> PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to
>>>>>>> any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that
>>>>>>> X returns?
>>>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>>>> (b) No
>>>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is
>>>>>> trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to
>>>>>> use decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of what X
>>>>>> says.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>>>
>>>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many words,
>>>> clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could be
>>> said more clearly.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is you misuse words so often, the only way you could be
>> clearer is to stop doing that.
>>
>> You also "invent" words that don't have accpted meanings without
>> definit=ng them.
>
> Any idiot can be a mere naysayer:
> Which woulds would you use to make my question more clear?

On 6/26/2023 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/23 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> girl?" must be false for everyone because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same word-for-word question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reference what it is talking about, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question veries based on who it is said
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, there isn't a single instance of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong verse point out that it doesn't prove what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATEMENT that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreed that this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable
>>>>>>>>>>> (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a
>>>>>>>>>>> valid program.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL
>>>>>>>>> PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to
>>>>>>>> any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value
>>>>>>>> that X returns?
>>>>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>>>>> (b) No
>>>>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is
>>>>>>> trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to
>>>>>>> use decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of what X
>>>>>>> says.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many words,
>>>>> clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could be
>>>> said more clearly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is you misuse words so often, the only way you could be
>>> clearer is to stop doing that.
>>>
>>> You also "invent" words that don't have accpted meanings without
>>> definit=ng them.
>>
>> Any idiot can be a mere naysayer:
>> Which woulds would you use to make my question more clear?
>
> A world where you never uses improper definitions.
>
> Like, your later talking about "{Halting Problem Instance}" as something
> that is some how like but not like a "{Halting Decider}" or that you can
> change the value of a return statement in a program, but still have the
> "same" program.
>
> You have burned that bridge.
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, X may be able to decide on many other inputs that property
>>>>>>> correctly, but can not do so for this particular one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, since the decider was defined to take ANY program as input,
>>>>>>> this sort of property becomes undecidable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H does correctly determine that its input has a pathological
>>>>>> relationship to H and specifically rejects its input on this basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only because it restricts its input to a non-turing complete set of
>>>>> inputs. Remeber, you have defined that H can not be copied into D,
>>>>> for "reasons", which shows that the input set isn't Turing Complete.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This limitation is not actually required. The alternative
>>>> requires inline_H to have very messy inline assembly language
>>>> that forces all function calls to be at an absolute rather than
>>>> relative machine address.
>>>
>>> Nope, the key point is that an actual Decider that accepts inputs
>>> that can define copies of itself can't actually recognize when a
>>> program calls a copy of itself as a "pathological" call to itself.
>>>
>>> When I pointed this out to you before, you answer was that it was
>>> impossible to create a "copy" of your H.
>>>
>>> Why does the copy of H need some messy inline assembly when the
>>> original one didn't? Why can't we just copy the actual code of H?
>>
>> Even if I made a single ten page long function that is both D and H
>> it still needs to call other functions that are part of the operating
>> system otherwise H cannot do output and such.
>>
>
> Remember, Turing Machines don't have "operating Systems", so that isn't
> a issue. Yes, in a Turing Complete language, you might have some "built
> ins" that act like "instructions" that are simple calls, to do things
> like I/O. The key is that without the OS providing that as a basic
> function, the "user" code COULD just do that operation.
>
> A "Halt Decider" isn't such a primitive.
>
>> Every function call uses relative addressing so a copy of the function
>> would call into the middle of garbage. I can override this with very
>> cumbersome embedded assembly language. No sense doing that. If people
>> can't understand a ten line C function a 600 line function with lots
>> of embedded assembly language won't help.
>
> But a program can know which function are "system" functions that have
> fixed location, and don't get relative addressing, so not an issue.
>

On 6/26/23 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/23 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2023 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> girl?" must be false for everyone because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same word-for-word question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reference what it is talking about, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question veries based on who it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set returns a value that corresponds to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the set, there isn't a single instance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factually wrong verse point out that it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATEMENT that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreed that this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable
>>>>>>>>>>>> (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> valid program.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL
>>>>>>>>>> PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers
>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value
>>>>>>>>> to any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value
>>>>>>>>> that X returns?
>>>>>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>>>>>> (b) No
>>>>>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X
>>>>>>>> is trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed
>>>>>>>> to use decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of
>>>>>>>> what X says.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many
>>>>>> words, clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could be
>>>>> said more clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is you misuse words so often, the only way you could be
>>>> clearer is to stop doing that.
>>>>
>>>> You also "invent" words that don't have accpted meanings without
>>>> definit=ng them.
>>>
>>> Any idiot can be a mere naysayer:
>>> Which woulds would you use to make my question more clear?
>>
>> A world where you never uses improper definitions.
>>
>> Like, your later talking about "{Halting Problem Instance}" as
>> something that is some how like but not like a "{Halting Decider}" or
>> that you can change the value of a return statement in a program, but
>> still have the "same" program.
>>
>> You have burned that bridge.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, X may be able to decide on many other inputs that property
>>>>>>>> correctly, but can not do so for this particular one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, since the decider was defined to take ANY program as
>>>>>>>> input, this sort of property becomes undecidable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H does correctly determine that its input has a pathological
>>>>>>> relationship to H and specifically rejects its input on this basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because it restricts its input to a non-turing complete set
>>>>>> of inputs. Remeber, you have defined that H can not be copied into
>>>>>> D, for "reasons", which shows that the input set isn't Turing
>>>>>> Complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This limitation is not actually required. The alternative
>>>>> requires inline_H to have very messy inline assembly language
>>>>> that forces all function calls to be at an absolute rather than
>>>>> relative machine address.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the key point is that an actual Decider that accepts inputs
>>>> that can define copies of itself can't actually recognize when a
>>>> program calls a copy of itself as a "pathological" call to itself.
>>>>
>>>> When I pointed this out to you before, you answer was that it was
>>>> impossible to create a "copy" of your H.
>>>>
>>>> Why does the copy of H need some messy inline assembly when the
>>>> original one didn't? Why can't we just copy the actual code of H?
>>>
>>> Even if I made a single ten page long function that is both D and H
>>> it still needs to call other functions that are part of the operating
>>> system otherwise H cannot do output and such.
>>>
>>
>> Remember, Turing Machines don't have "operating Systems", so that
>> isn't a issue. Yes, in a Turing Complete language, you might have some
>> "built ins" that act like "instructions" that are simple calls, to do
>> things like I/O. The key is that without the OS providing that as a
>> basic function, the "user" code COULD just do that operation.
>>
>> A "Halt Decider" isn't such a primitive.
>>
>>> Every function call uses relative addressing so a copy of the function
>>> would call into the middle of garbage. I can override this with very
>>> cumbersome embedded assembly language. No sense doing that. If people
>>> can't understand a ten line C function a 600 line function with lots
>>> of embedded assembly language won't help.
>>
>> But a program can know which function are "system" functions that have
>> fixed location, and don't get relative addressing, so not an issue.
>>
>
> I wrote this operating system and the simulated code must call a
> function template in its own code in order for the operating system to
> intercept this call and forward the call to itself.

On 6/27/2023 6:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/23 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2023 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/23 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2023 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> girl?" must be false for everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the exact same word-for-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pronoun to reference what it is talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, so the question veries based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set returns a value that corresponds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the set, there isn't a single instance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factually wrong verse point out that it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATEMENT that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Q has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreed that this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL
>>>>>>>>>>> PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers
>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value
>>>>>>>>>> to any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>> value that X returns?
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>>>>>>> (b) No
>>>>>>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X
>>>>>>>>> is trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed
>>>>>>>>> to use decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of
>>>>>>>>> what X says.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many
>>>>>>> words, clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could be
>>>>>> said more clearly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is you misuse words so often, the only way you could be
>>>>> clearer is to stop doing that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You also "invent" words that don't have accpted meanings without
>>>>> definit=ng them.
>>>>
>>>> Any idiot can be a mere naysayer:
>>>> Which woulds would you use to make my question more clear?
>>>
>>> A world where you never uses improper definitions.
>>>
>>> Like, your later talking about "{Halting Problem Instance}" as
>>> something that is some how like but not like a "{Halting Decider}" or
>>> that you can change the value of a return statement in a program, but
>>> still have the "same" program.
>>>
>>> You have burned that bridge.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, X may be able to decide on many other inputs that
>>>>>>>>> property correctly, but can not do so for this particular one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, since the decider was defined to take ANY program as
>>>>>>>>> input, this sort of property becomes undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H does correctly determine that its input has a pathological
>>>>>>>> relationship to H and specifically rejects its input on this basis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only because it restricts its input to a non-turing complete set
>>>>>>> of inputs. Remeber, you have defined that H can not be copied
>>>>>>> into D, for "reasons", which shows that the input set isn't
>>>>>>> Turing Complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This limitation is not actually required. The alternative
>>>>>> requires inline_H to have very messy inline assembly language
>>>>>> that forces all function calls to be at an absolute rather than
>>>>>> relative machine address.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, the key point is that an actual Decider that accepts inputs
>>>>> that can define copies of itself can't actually recognize when a
>>>>> program calls a copy of itself as a "pathological" call to itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I pointed this out to you before, you answer was that it was
>>>>> impossible to create a "copy" of your H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does the copy of H need some messy inline assembly when the
>>>>> original one didn't? Why can't we just copy the actual code of H?
>>>>
>>>> Even if I made a single ten page long function that is both D and H
>>>> it still needs to call other functions that are part of the operating
>>>> system otherwise H cannot do output and such.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Remember, Turing Machines don't have "operating Systems", so that
>>> isn't a issue. Yes, in a Turing Complete language, you might have
>>> some "built ins" that act like "instructions" that are simple calls,
>>> to do things like I/O. The key is that without the OS providing that
>>> as a basic function, the "user" code COULD just do that operation.
>>>
>>> A "Halt Decider" isn't such a primitive.
>>>
>>>> Every function call uses relative addressing so a copy of the function
>>>> would call into the middle of garbage. I can override this with very
>>>> cumbersome embedded assembly language. No sense doing that. If people
>>>> can't understand a ten line C function a 600 line function with lots
>>>> of embedded assembly language won't help.
>>>
>>> But a program can know which function are "system" functions that
>>> have fixed location, and don't get relative addressing, so not an issue.
>>>
>>
>> I wrote this operating system and the simulated code must call a
>> function template in its own code in order for the operating system to
>> intercept this call and forward the call to itself.
>
> No, UTM86 isn't really an operating system in the classic sense, since
> itself runs under an operating system. It provide ZERO hardware support
> itself.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Maybe you haven't had to do PIC before (Position Independent Code).
>>
>> Is there a C compiler that generates a COFF file of this?
>
> I haven't look, but I think GCC can generate COFF, and I know it can
> generate PIC. I think you can also convert the normal ELF output to
> COFF. (And what's so special about COFF except that it is what Microsoft
> uses?)
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the basis of Rice's Theorem. Note, your configuration
>>>>>>>>> where Y is made within the address space of X, and must
>>>>>>>>> directly call the deciding X and not able to use another copy
>>>>>>>>> of it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It took me the last two days to solve this issue in a better
>>>>>>>> way than the way that took me six months to derive. I also
>>>>>>>> reiterated and simplified my original method.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This effort was not actually required because my simpler
>>>>>>>> form of the halting problem instance commonly understood
>>>>>>>> to be a halting problem instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it isn't actually one, so it isn't. You are just lying and
>>>>>>> serving Strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your H can't take in ALL programs as an input, the partial
>>>>> solution is just a strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A halting problem instance only requires that an input D do
>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that any corresponding
>>>>>>>> H could possibly return.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, a Halting Decider
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am defining {halting problem instance} not {halt decider}.
>>>>>> By defining {halting problem instance} I prove that H/D is a
>>>>>> {halting problem instance}. Thus no actual need for additional
>>>>>> more convoluted cases that copy their input.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, either your {Halting Problem Instance} uses an ACTUAL {Halt
>>>>> Decider} or it is just a strawman.
>>>>
>>>> H is a termination analyzer.
>>>
>>> So, are you admitting it doesn't meet the requirements of a "Halt
>>> Decider"? (and thus doesn't mean anything to the Halting Theorem)
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing in the Halting Theory that says you can't build a
>>>>> decider that decides on SOME cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> needs to CORRECT answer about the HALTING PROPERTY, which is
>>>>>>> about the actual behavior of the machine described by the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is a decidability decider for itself with its input.
>>>>>> Rice's theorem says this is impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the problem is your input isn't from a Turing Complete
>>>>> programming environmenet, so Rice doesn't apply.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you know that not every algorithm actually required unlimited
>>>> memory? H need not at all be Turing complete.
>>>
>>> Not talking about unlimited memory. I am talking about being able to
>>> give an arbitary but finite program. You don't seem to understand that.
>>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
>> A finite program could require a googolplex^ googolplex
>> more bytes than atoms in the universe.
>
> Yes, in ultra-precise usage, full Turing Completeness is impossible to
> build, but in practical terms, the memory limit can be waived when
> looking at physical machines as that normally doesn't come out to be the
> actual issue.
>
> If an architecture could theoretically be expanded to any arbitrary
> finite amount of memory by upgrading the address space, or allows the
> mounting of additional "external" memory, a thus an unbounded amount of
> memory could theoretically be presented, then such an architecture is
> generally considered "Turing Complete" if it meets the other
> requirements, which you don't seem to understand.
>
> So, the C programming language is strictly Turing Complete, as the
> language itself doesn't provide an upper bound on the memory that the
> program could access (even though any actual implementation will have
> one since the sizeof the variable will be finite.
>
> The x86 assembly language is considered practically Turing Complete, as
> the instruction set is powerful enough, and if the direct memory
> accessible isn't enough for a given problem, we can, in theory, either
> define a new version with wider registers, or extend memory with some
> from of external store that we "page" into parts of the memory.
>
> Your system fails this, as for some reason "H" can't be copied.
>
> Note, a "Proper" decider H, should be given as an input the description
> of a COMPLETE program, which would be an input which has ALL of its code
> (and thus for D, it would include its own copy of H). The H in D needs
> to be an independent instance from the instance of the decider.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Until you show how H can take a truly arbitrary program, including
>>>>> one that has its own copy of your decider, then you haven't met the
>>>>> requirements to try to invoke Rice.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will never convince you of anything because your primary goal is
>>>> rebuttal.
>>>
>>> No, muy primary goal it TRUTH. When you state a falsehood. I correct
>>> it. You don't seem to have such a goal, as you don't try to point out
>>> what the error is in what I say, you just repeat your ERROR and say
>>> it should be obvious.
>>>
>>
>> If your primary goal is truth you would agree with the true
>> things that I say.
>
> Except you rarely say True things. The issue seeems to be that you
> fundamentally don't understand what is Truth, or what is actually valid
> logic, so you season everything you say with untruth, and just a timy
> bit of untruth makes a statement untrue.
>
>
>>
>>> The only obvious thing is that you don't actually have a way to
>>> really prove what you are saying, since you bottom out at the level
>>> you can discuss things, and below that just needs to be taken a true
>>> without proof, as if you do try to go more definitive the errors
>>> become too obvious to try to hinde.
>>>
>>
>> It is true that H can be slightly adapted such that it recognizes
>> and rejects inputs that do the opposite of whatever their termination
>> analyzer returns and accepts the rest.
>
> Then DO IT. Note, a "slightly adapted" program is no longer the same
> program by computational analysis criterea.
>
>>
>> To the best of my knowledge This <is> a breakthrough that
>> no one else has ever had.
>
> Except you can't show what you claim, so even you don't have it. You may
> show something that matches part of what you claim, but then when you
> apply it to the actual Halting Problem, it falls apart as it was based
> on incorrect definitions.
>
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Except if embedded_H isn't an exact equivalent to H, that result in
> meaningless.
>

On 6/27/23 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2023 6:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/23 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2023 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/23 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/2023 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> girl?" must be false for everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the exact same word-for-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pronoun to reference what it is talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, so the question veries based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set returns a value that corresponds to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of its TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not that the Halting Question is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the set, there isn't a single instance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> factually wrong verse point out that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't prove what you want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this set returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATEMENT that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property Q has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMD2 that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreed that this mean the Halting Question, i.e,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question of the behaivor of TMD2 has a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Halting Question ALWAYS has a correct answer, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solved is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see below)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL
>>>>>>>>>>>> PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value
>>>>>>>>>>> to any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>> value that X returns?
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) No
>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X
>>>>>>>>>> is trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is
>>>>>>>>>> designed to use decider X and crates a value of property P
>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what X says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many
>>>>>>>> words, clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could
>>>>>>> be said more clearly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is you misuse words so often, the only way you could
>>>>>> be clearer is to stop doing that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also "invent" words that don't have accpted meanings without
>>>>>> definit=ng them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any idiot can be a mere naysayer:
>>>>> Which woulds would you use to make my question more clear?
>>>>
>>>> A world where you never uses improper definitions.
>>>>
>>>> Like, your later talking about "{Halting Problem Instance}" as
>>>> something that is some how like but not like a "{Halting Decider}"
>>>> or that you can change the value of a return statement in a program,
>>>> but still have the "same" program.
>>>>
>>>> You have burned that bridge.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, X may be able to decide on many other inputs that
>>>>>>>>>> property correctly, but can not do so for this particular one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note, since the decider was defined to take ANY program as
>>>>>>>>>> input, this sort of property becomes undecidable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H does correctly determine that its input has a pathological
>>>>>>>>> relationship to H and specifically rejects its input on this
>>>>>>>>> basis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only because it restricts its input to a non-turing complete set
>>>>>>>> of inputs. Remeber, you have defined that H can not be copied
>>>>>>>> into D, for "reasons", which shows that the input set isn't
>>>>>>>> Turing Complete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This limitation is not actually required. The alternative
>>>>>>> requires inline_H to have very messy inline assembly language
>>>>>>> that forces all function calls to be at an absolute rather than
>>>>>>> relative machine address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, the key point is that an actual Decider that accepts inputs
>>>>>> that can define copies of itself can't actually recognize when a
>>>>>> program calls a copy of itself as a "pathological" call to itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I pointed this out to you before, you answer was that it was
>>>>>> impossible to create a "copy" of your H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does the copy of H need some messy inline assembly when the
>>>>>> original one didn't? Why can't we just copy the actual code of H?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if I made a single ten page long function that is both D and H
>>>>> it still needs to call other functions that are part of the operating
>>>>> system otherwise H cannot do output and such.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember, Turing Machines don't have "operating Systems", so that
>>>> isn't a issue. Yes, in a Turing Complete language, you might have
>>>> some "built ins" that act like "instructions" that are simple calls,
>>>> to do things like I/O. The key is that without the OS providing that
>>>> as a basic function, the "user" code COULD just do that operation.
>>>>
>>>> A "Halt Decider" isn't such a primitive.
>>>>
>>>>> Every function call uses relative addressing so a copy of the function
>>>>> would call into the middle of garbage. I can override this with very
>>>>> cumbersome embedded assembly language. No sense doing that. If people
>>>>> can't understand a ten line C function a 600 line function with lots
>>>>> of embedded assembly language won't help.
>>>>
>>>> But a program can know which function are "system" functions that
>>>> have fixed location, and don't get relative addressing, so not an
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wrote this operating system and the simulated code must call a
>>> function template in its own code in order for the operating system to
>>> intercept this call and forward the call to itself.
>>
>> No, UTM86 isn't really an operating system in the classic sense, since
>> itself runs under an operating system. It provide ZERO hardware
>> support itself.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe you haven't had to do PIC before (Position Independent Code).
>>>
>>> Is there a C compiler that generates a COFF file of this?
>>
>> I haven't look, but I think GCC can generate COFF, and I know it can
>> generate PIC. I think you can also convert the normal ELF output to
>> COFF. (And what's so special about COFF except that it is what
>> Microsoft uses?)
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the basis of Rice's Theorem. Note, your configuration
>>>>>>>>>> where Y is made within the address space of X, and must
>>>>>>>>>> directly call the deciding X and not able to use another copy
>>>>>>>>>> of it
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It took me the last two days to solve this issue in a better
>>>>>>>>> way than the way that took me six months to derive. I also
>>>>>>>>> reiterated and simplified my original method.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This effort was not actually required because my simpler
>>>>>>>>> form of the halting problem instance commonly understood
>>>>>>>>> to be a halting problem instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it isn't actually one, so it isn't. You are just lying and
>>>>>>>> serving Strawman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since your H can't take in ALL programs as an input, the partial
>>>>>> solution is just a strawman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A halting problem instance only requires that an input D do
>>>>>>>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that any corresponding
>>>>>>>>> H could possibly return.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, a Halting Decider
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am defining {halting problem instance} not {halt decider}.
>>>>>>> By defining {halting problem instance} I prove that H/D is a
>>>>>>> {halting problem instance}. Thus no actual need for additional
>>>>>>> more convoluted cases that copy their input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, either your {Halting Problem Instance} uses an ACTUAL {Halt
>>>>>> Decider} or it is just a strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is a termination analyzer.
>>>>
>>>> So, are you admitting it doesn't meet the requirements of a "Halt
>>>> Decider"? (and thus doesn't mean anything to the Halting Theorem)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is nothing in the Halting Theory that says you can't build a
>>>>>> decider that decides on SOME cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> needs to CORRECT answer about the HALTING PROPERTY, which is
>>>>>>>> about the actual behavior of the machine described by the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is a decidability decider for itself with its input.
>>>>>>> Rice's theorem says this is impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the problem is your input isn't from a Turing Complete
>>>>>> programming environmenet, so Rice doesn't apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you know that not every algorithm actually required unlimited
>>>>> memory? H need not at all be Turing complete.
>>>>
>>>> Not talking about unlimited memory. I am talking about being able to
>>>> give an arbitary but finite program. You don't seem to understand that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
>>> A finite program could require a googolplex^ googolplex
>>> more bytes than atoms in the universe.
>>
>> Yes, in ultra-precise usage, full Turing Completeness is impossible to
>> build, but in practical terms, the memory limit can be waived when
>> looking at physical machines as that normally doesn't come out to be
>> the actual issue.
>>
>> If an architecture could theoretically be expanded to any arbitrary
>> finite amount of memory by upgrading the address space, or allows the
>> mounting of additional "external" memory, a thus an unbounded amount
>> of memory could theoretically be presented, then such an architecture
>> is generally considered "Turing Complete" if it meets the other
>> requirements, which you don't seem to understand.
>>
>> So, the C programming language is strictly Turing Complete, as the
>> language itself doesn't provide an upper bound on the memory that the
>> program could access (even though any actual implementation will have
>> one since the sizeof the variable will be finite.
>>
>> The x86 assembly language is considered practically Turing Complete,
>> as the instruction set is powerful enough, and if the direct memory
>> accessible isn't enough for a given problem, we can, in theory, either
>> define a new version with wider registers, or extend memory with some
>> from of external store that we "page" into parts of the memory.
>>
>> Your system fails this, as for some reason "H" can't be copied.
>>
>> Note, a "Proper" decider H, should be given as an input the
>> description of a COMPLETE program, which would be an input which has
>> ALL of its code (and thus for D, it would include its own copy of H).
>> The H in D needs to be an independent instance from the instance of
>> the decider.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you show how H can take a truly arbitrary program, including
>>>>>> one that has its own copy of your decider, then you haven't met
>>>>>> the requirements to try to invoke Rice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will never convince you of anything because your primary goal is
>>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>> No, muy primary goal it TRUTH. When you state a falsehood. I correct
>>>> it. You don't seem to have such a goal, as you don't try to point
>>>> out what the error is in what I say, you just repeat your ERROR and
>>>> say it should be obvious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If your primary goal is truth you would agree with the true
>>> things that I say.
>>
>> Except you rarely say True things. The issue seeems to be that you
>> fundamentally don't understand what is Truth, or what is actually
>> valid logic, so you season everything you say with untruth, and just a
>> timy bit of untruth makes a statement untrue.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The only obvious thing is that you don't actually have a way to
>>>> really prove what you are saying, since you bottom out at the level
>>>> you can discuss things, and below that just needs to be taken a true
>>>> without proof, as if you do try to go more definitive the errors
>>>> become too obvious to try to hinde.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is true that H can be slightly adapted such that it recognizes
>>> and rejects inputs that do the opposite of whatever their termination
>>> analyzer returns and accepts the rest.
>>
>> Then DO IT. Note, a "slightly adapted" program is no longer the same
>> program by computational analysis criterea.
>>
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge This <is> a breakthrough that
>>> no one else has ever had.
>>
>> Except you can't show what you claim, so even you don't have it. You
>> may show something that matches part of what you claim, but then when
>> you apply it to the actual Halting Problem, it falls apart as it was
>> based on incorrect definitions.
>>
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> Except if embedded_H isn't an exact equivalent to H, that result in
>> meaningless.
>>
>
> The Peter Linz proof stipulates that embedded_H is a verbatim
> identical copy of H.
>