On 6/20/2023 3:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/20/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/20/2023 3:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/20/23 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2023 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 10:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/23 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2023 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/23 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/23 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the directly executed P(P) is different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of P(P) correctly simulated by H because in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first case H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has already aborted its simulation of its input and in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second case
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this has not yet occurred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> By what definition of "Correctly Simulated"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that H aborts its simulation has NO affect on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of the machine, so all you are saying that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H has shut its eyes and said "I don't see it, so it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just FALSEHOOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I now refer to P(P) as D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it cannot see the details below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not the question being asked. The fact that it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to design an H that can correctly simulate its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a halting state just proves that H can not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly decider that its input is Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This does NOT mean that the input can't be Halting, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H can never prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IF H doesn't ever abort its simulation, then yes, the D
>>>>>>>>>>>>> built on that H is non-halting, but that H never gives that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, so it is still wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each H gets a DIFFERENT D, since they include the H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "pathological test" is to be performed on, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of one D built on a different H doesn't apply, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for correct reasoning, you really need to give each one a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different name. Reusing the same name for different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, and then trying to confuse which one is which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a sign of being intentionally deceptive to try to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulator. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system enables one C function to execute another C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function in debug
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process context for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations is RAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But D is not SPECIFIED in a seperate context, but share
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code space with H, which means it fails to be truely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinctly, like a Turing Machine would be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is NOT a full "separate process context" as all the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts share code space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)   // uses x86 emulator to simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 void main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14   D(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally by reaching its own final state at line 09.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But D correctly simulated by a correct simulator would, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> least as long as you are using an H that answer H(D,D) as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0, as you claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>> H correctly simulates N steps of D until H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> predicts through
>>>>>>>>>>>> the type of mathematical induction used by termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzers that D
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But that is the wrong prediction. It needs to predict if the
>>>>>>>>>>> input when run will halt, as THAT is the Halting Question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is just like Jack's question posed to Jack,
>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT could understand that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, and you just seem too stupid to understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, you are just admitting to working on POOP instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting, and ALL your statements are just LIES.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int factorial(int n)
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    if(n==0)
>>>>>>>>>>>>      return(1);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return(n*factorial(n-1));
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> AProVE correctly determines that factorial(5) halts by
>>>>>>>>>>>> boiling the key behavior of entire function to this:
>>>>>>>>>>>> f(x) → f(x-1) :|: x > 0 && x <= 5
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  > Wrong Question leads to incorrect answer, and all your
>>>>>>>>>>> work goes down
>>>>>>>>>>> the drain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> AProVE is the largest termination analysis project in the world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, and it probably uses the RIGHT question, will the program
>>>>>>>>> halt when actually run.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It will probably also tell you that D(D) will Halt since H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>> returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus, it likely shows you are wrong about everything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we use the criteria:
>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H ever terminate normally?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are ADMITTING to working on a different problem, and lying
>>>>>>> about what you are doing. Thank you for being honest about that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben is just pointing out the ERRORS in your logic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
>>>>>> P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a
>>>>>> complete understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> NO, it is a TRUE statement. H is NOT a correct HALT DECIDER.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be a valid POOP decider with your altered criteria, but it
>>>>> isn't correct as a Halt Decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get to change the meaning of words, attempting to just
>>>>> shows you are a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting is a property of the original machine, not of the partial
>>>>> simulation that H does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
>>>>>> from H to mean either that P(P) does not halt or P(P) specifically
>>>>>> targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H
>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means you H need to return BOTH a 0 and 1 at the same time,
>>>> Not at all. Not the least little bit.
>>>> A return value of 0 also indicates that input D intentionally targets
>>>> H by doing the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
>>>
>>> But a return of 1 signals that it halts, which it does.
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand English.
>>>
>>> The Halting Problem asks if the Machine Described by the input Halts.
>>>
>>> It Does (for the H that you are cliaming to be correct)
>>>
>>> Therefore, the correct answer is YES / Halting, and you are PROVED to
>>> be a LIAR.
>> If I am the one that is a Liar then why did you already say that 1 is
>> the wrong answer and are now saying that it is the right answer?
>>
>
> Where did I say that 1 is the wrong answer to THAT question.
>
What happens when H returns 1 to D?

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