On 5/20/2023 2:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/20/23 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/20/2023 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/20/23 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/20/23 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 11:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 11:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 10:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 8:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 12:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 5:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong Question!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words the question is over you head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It took me many years to recognize this same dodge by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is the WRONG question once you try to apply the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to the Halting Problem, which you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the software engineering really is over your head?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see, so like Ben you have never actually written any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you aren't talking about Software Engineering unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are lying about this applying to the Halting Problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by Linz, since that is the Halting Problem of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computability Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, the likely explanation is that you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant of what you are talking about, so you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the diference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben kept masking his coding incompetence this way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred to me that you have never written any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have possibly written more WORKING code than you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you. Your inability to answer an straight
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering question seems to prove otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What software engineering question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to that question is NO,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally you admit an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> but that is because H doesn't, and can never do an accurarte
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation per the definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation by a UTM would be wrong then you would have
>>>>>>>>>> to be able
>>>>>>>>>> to point out the mistake in the simulation of D by H,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, the simulation by a ACTUAL UTM will reach a final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know why you say this when you already know that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because embedded_H doesn't actually "Correctly Simulate" its
>>>>>>> input by the definintion aquired by your mentioning of a UTM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have already agreed that it does simulate the first N steps
>>>>>> correctly. It is just as obvious that the behavior pattern of N
>>>>>> steps of
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly terminate
>>>>>> normally
>>>>>> even if the value of N is ∞.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But N steps in not ALL steps as required by the actual definition
>>>>> of a UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually N steps is the exact definition of a UTM for those N steps.
>>>> Just like with the H/D example after N steps we can see that neither
>>>> D correctly simulated by H nor ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H
>>>> can possibly terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, UTMs have no concept of only doing a partial simulation.
>>>
>> When a simulating halt decider correctly simulates N steps of its input
>> it derives the exact same N steps that a pure UTM would derive because
>> it is itself a UTM with extra features.
>>
>
> Just like a racing car is a street legal care with extra features that
> makes it no longer street legal.
>
> The fact that H aborts its simulation part way means it is no longer a
> UTM

*Yet only at the point where it aborts its simulation*
At this point where it aborts its simulation we can see that it must
do this to prevent its own infinite execution, thus conclusively proving
that it correctly determined that its simulated input cannot possibly
terminate normally.

How much longer are you going to play the fool and deny this?

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer