Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down

On 6/1/2024 11:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott:

On 6/1/2024 10:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:17 schreef olcott:

On 6/1/2024 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.jun.2024 om 01:57 schreef olcott:

On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/31/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:

Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
machine address 00001c47.

>
Why should I, since that isn't what I was saying.
>

>
*To me that looks like you know that*
*you have been busted in a lie and are backing down*

>
no, YOU are LYING RIGHT HERE AND NOW.
>
Prove that I said that the simulation by HH made it there, or admit to being a DAMNED LIAR.
>
What I have been saying is the the DIRECT EXDCUTION of DD, and the CORRECT (and complete) simulation of the input to HH by an actual UTM will get there.
>

>
That has always been the dishonest dodge strawman deception
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal regarding
the behavior of DD correctly simulated by pure function HH.

>
But it is your talking about the "correctly simulated by HH" that is the dishonest dodge,

>
Try and show how HH using an x86 emulator can correctly emulate
the following x86 machine code such that DD reaches its own
machine address 00001c47.

>
Never said it could. But haven't looked hard enough to be willing to say it can't, but then, who cares, it doesn't say a thing about the real halting problem, since H's simulation isn't "correct" by a definition that relates simulation to non-halting behavior,
>

>
"...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
Linz(1990:234)
>
*If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
*final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
>

>
Similarly:
*If HH correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
*final state then HH correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
>
This is on-topic, because you claim is that HH halts, but your own words show that it is not. Your phantasy HH that simulates and halts does not exist.
>
>

>
The directly executed HH(DD,DD) halts because it stops simulating
DD as soon as it sees that DD has a repeating state. I am beginning
to suspect that you intend to continue being disingenuous.
>

>
Halting criteria are the same for all functions. If the direct execution of HH(DD,DD) proves that HH halts, then the direct execution of DD also proves that DD halts.

>
*HH is required to report on the behavior that its input specifies*
HH is not allowed to report on the behavior of DD(DD) {the computation
that itself is contained within}.

 The input of HH is HH as part of DD. (Remember DD calls HH.)
So, when HH is required to report about its input, it reports about the behaviour of both DD and HH.
 

HH correctly reports that because DD calls HH(DD,DD) in
recursive simulation that DD never halts.
HHH(HH,DD,DD) would report that HH halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer