On 6/1/24 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/1/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/1/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/1/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/1/24 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>
Show me where I said anything in the above spec about an aborted simulation.
>
So, why did HH stop simulating after some n steps?
>
Did it reach a final state in the simulation? if not, it ABORTED its simulation.
>
>
When every possible which way DD correctly simulated by HH never reaches
past its own simulated line 03 then
>
And a simulation either goes until it reaches a final state of the machine it is simulating, or it aborted its simulation.
>
>
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00 int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01 int DD(ptr p)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 HH(DD,DD);
12 return 0;
13 }
>
When every DD correctly simulated by any HH cannot possibly reach
past its own simulated line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation
of DD by HH then we have exhaustively examined every possible HH/DD
pair and each element has of this infinite set has the same property.
>
So?
>
It doesn't matter how many aborted simulaiton you do of a given input (and each HH simulated a DIFFERENT input since it simulated the INSTANCE of the template with a different HH)
>
In other words one cannot prove that every five pound rock weighs
more than every three pound rock, one must weigh them one-at-a-time?
Nope. But you need to show that each rock IS a five pound rock.
IF you weigh one rock, and find it is 5 pounds, doesn't mean that anothoer rock rock that looks about the same is also 5 pouds,
You do seem to like you Herring in Red sauce, don't you.
The comparison here is that you have only "weighed" a very few of your DDs, only those built on an HH that NEVER aborts have been determined to not halt. The others are just haven't-yet-halted-after-n-steps, but we actually DO know that they WILL Halt after more.
The ONLY simulation that actually showed that ITS input was no-halting was the HH that never aborted, and it didn't answer.
>
Every other HH has a DIFFERENT INPUT and would be LYING to say it had that other input.
>
In other words (because each rock is different) one cannot prove that every five pound rock weighs more than every three pound rock, one must weigh them one-at-a-time?
Nope, unless of course you still need to weight them to show they ARE 5 pound rocks.
Every HH/DD pair of the infinite of every possible HH/DD pair
DD correctly simulated by HH NEVER HALTS.
That isn't even your original claim you were asking about.
Your claim wasn't about "Halting" because that is easily disproven, but that there correct PARTIAL simulation done by H never reaches the statement after the call.
You are just showing your true colors, that you just don't understand what you are talkinag about and get your lies confused.
>
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
*THIS PROVES THAT THE INPUT TO H(DD,DD) DOES NOT HALT*
>
Nope. Aborted simulation don't prove anything.
>
When for each element of the infinite set of every HH/DD pair DD
correctly simulated by HH cannot get past its own simulated line 03
then we know that none of the DD inputs to each HH(DD,DD) ever halts.
Nope. Try to actually PROVE that.
Since we can prove that they DO Halts, at least all of the DD built on an HH that returns 0 for HH(DD,DD), it should be impossible to prove that they never halt, unless your logic system =has gone inconsistent,
So either HH found a final state, and thus should have said Halting, or it aborted its simulation and doesn't prove anything.
>
Every HH/DD pair of the infinite of every possible HH/DD pair
DD correctly simulated by HH NEVER HALTS.
WRONG. You have been proven wrong on this, so your repeating it just shows you to be a LIAR.
(You failed to accept the challange, so I can call you that)
But maybe some of the do halt? No NONE OF THEM HALT !!!
EVERY DD built on a HH that returns 0 for HH(DD,DD) Halts.
EVERY HH that doesn't abort its simulaiton, never answers.
So NO DD has been correctly predicted to be non-halting, so
*NO* HH ever return the right answer
So *NO* Peter Olcott has shown the Halting Problem refuted, and just shows that he is nothing but an ignorant pathological liar that doen't understand what he is talking about.
>
Nope, prove you don't know what you are talking about, or are just a liar destined for Gehenna,
>
>
Are you willing to bet your soul on the claim that you believe
that you are telling the truth? I do believe that I am telling
the truth and I also believe that you already know that I am
correct about the above statements that I made.
>
>
Sure. Because I know what I know.
>
Are you really willing to bet yours?
Remember, you know you have made mistakes on this in the past.
>
After all, you just claimed that you HH never aborted its simulations (or at least implied that as you said the you never mentioned a simulaiton being aborted as a reason to ignore that aborted simulation don't prove non-halting behavior).
>
I need to check that the words that I say are decoded in your mind
the way that I encoded them. I did never mention abort. You can
correctly construe simulating a finite number of instructions as
equivalent to aborting. I needed to make sure how you are decoding
my words.
How does an HH stop its simulation to return if it doesn't abort its simulation?
A simulation can end in only do one of two things, run to completion, or be aborted. Which one did HH do?
If it ran to completion, then HH proved that the input is Halting.
If it aborted its simulation, then HH proved nothing about the inputs halting, except for a lower bound on the number of steps it takes.
Necessary inference is valid logic. Just because you didn't SAY aborted, doesn't mean that we can't show that it WAS aborted.
You aren't allowed to try to imagine the impossible machine that actually does correctly simulate an infinte number of steps in a finite number or steps. That is part of your error in logic, you are willing to assume the impossible to show that wrong things are right.
IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE DENYING THE VERIFIED FACTS OF SOME OF MY
WORDS. IT DOES SEEM LIKE YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE DENYING VERIFIED FACTS.
The problem is you don't seem to understand HOW to actually verify your words, so nothing you claim as "verified facts" have actually been verified.
So, you just proved yourself to be a liar, as either they SHOULD be saying Halting because they stopped because they completed, or they should be still simulating, but they only did a finite number of steps, or the aborted their simulation.
>
None of the infinite set of HH/DD has a DD correctly simulated
by HH that halts. You have been using double-talk to avoid this
verified fact. I am using paraphrasing to make sure that we are
using common meanings.
WRONG. Proven incorrect, and shows that you are nothing but a pathological liar.
You are messing up your words because you don't understand what they mean. You CAN'T prove non-halting with aborted simulations (without other logic about what was seen in the simulation).
How's the lake?
>
>
Or, since you lost it already, does it not matter any more?
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets