Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (LIE)

On 5/22/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/22/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/22/24 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/22/24 5:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2022 2:53 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:

He's dry-run P(P) and established that it doesn't halt. He's invoked H on it
and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run P(P) and it halts.
>
So something odd is going on there that needs an explanation.

>
*MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
*MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
*MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         H(D,D);
12         return 0;
13       }
>
In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
x86 instructions of D.
>
This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
recursive simulation.
>
It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite
set of H/D pairs that match the above template that
>
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by
H remains stuck in recursive simulation.
>
Deciders are only accountable for the behavior of their inputs
and are thus not allowed to report on the behavior of the computation
that they themselves are contained within.

>
No. "Behavior of their inputss" MEANS for Turing Machines that are computing properties of Turing Machines (like Halt Deciders) have the "behavior of their input" defined as the Behavior of the machine their input represents/describes/specifies.
>

>
Only specifies and no matter how many times you deny it,
it remains a verified fact that:
the input to H
the input to H
the input to H
the input to H
the input to H
the input to H
the input to H
specifies that it never reaches its own final state and halts.

>
No since when the input is run,

>
*That has nothing to do with*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
*The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>

>
Sure it does.
>
What else does the question: Does the program described to the decider halt mean other than that?

 *That is the FREAKING WRONG QUESTION*

Then you aren't talking about the HALTING PROBLEM.
You don't get to tell people the problem they want to solve is the wrong problem, and it is a LIE to say some other different problem answers the one they have.

 *NO ONE KNEW THAT IS WAS THE WRONG QUESTION*
*ONLY BECAUSE EVERYONE REJECTED A SIMULATING*
*TERMINATION ANALYZER OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW*

NO, because your "Termination Analyzers" don't solve the problem that was being asked of the Halting Decider.

 D of every H/D pair where D is correctly simulated
by H cannot possibly reach is own line 06 and halt.

And who cares abot that, if it can be true but when we actually run D(D) it halts.

 The failure to provide a counter-example will be
construed as proof of this.
 

Your last claim == proof that you don't understand how logic works.
You have wasted your last 20 years, because you just didn't understand what you were talking about.
You have turned yourself into a pathological liar because you have taught yourself to ignore things that disagree with you, and you pretend they don't exist, and then you think you can correctly say they don't, when it is just a lie.
Your are worse then the election deniers. You refuse to look at the evidence. At least there claim has a possibility of having a chance to be logically true, since absence of proof is not a proof of absence, and there could be a deep state lying machine hiding the evidence.
In your case, evidence is put before you, but you just can't understand it because you have closed your mind to to truth.