Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2

On 6/16/24 5:06 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/16/2024 10:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/16/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:44:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/16/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:

 

Whenever a decider is run it answers the question it is made to answer.

Not necessarily. Just because everyone falsely assumes that D correctly
simulated by H must have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D)
does not make this false assumption true.

 

You still need to explain how you can call a simulation that differs from
the behaviour of its input "correct".

 

Indeed, you do.

 

I have proven it many times and this proof is simply over
everyone's heads.

 

Nonsense!  How about, instead of "proving", actually explaining?  If a
simulation differs from its original, it's not a simulation; it's just a
random program.

 

When I ask what your C programming skill level is, this *is not* a
rhetorical question.

 

The question has nothing to do with C programming.

 

typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
int H(ptr P, ptr I);

 

int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

 

Unless I make every single detail 100% explicit false
assumptions always slip though the cracks.

 No.  Every single detail just obfuscates and hides the facts.  The
problem is you have been talking absurdities for so long you have
probably come to believe them.  Nobody else is fooled.
 

The ONLY way to make EVERY SINGLE DETAIL 100% EXPLICIT is the x86
programming language.

 No, that's just a convenient means for obfuscation and expressing
strawmen.
 

There cannot possibly be any H that correctly emulates
the x86 machine code of D according to the semantics
of the x86 programming language such that the emulated
D ever reaches its own emulated final state at machine
address [00001f58].

 Emulation, Simulation.  By definition a simulator does the same as what
it's simulating.  If it doesn't, it's not a simulator.  Everybody else
understands that.  Why don't you?
 Are you saying above that simulators are impossible?  Everybody else has
understood for a long time that they're not sensible, here.  But
impossible?
 [ .... ]
 

Once the above is understood (people quit denying verified facts).

 You're lying again.  There are no verified facts in the above (which I
snipped).
 

thenn (then and only then) I can show how this applies to Turing
machines.

 If you'd've simply stuck to turing machines all along, you could have
avoided a lot of the confusion you've got yourself into.  Why not start
talking about turing machines now?
 

Because he just doesn't understand Turing Machines, so can't show what he want there. Also, Turing Machines don't allow him to "Cheat" the way he did with H and D being intermixed the way they are. Which may be why he has so much problem with Turing Machines, since he doesn't understand the restrictions that apply to what a Computation can do, so he gets frustrated when they don't let him do the things he needs to do, since they aren't actually computations.
So, he wants to do his proof with his non-equivalent machines, and then try to bamboozle us into thinking he can show that they are actually the equivalent the the Turing Machines.
And, the bigger issue is he really doesn't care about the Halting Problem itself, just that it is stepping stone that provided a path to Godel and Tarski for proofs that drive a stake in the heart of his idea about truth. Proofs he doesn't understand, so can't actually refute, but he thinks if he can show a problem with the halting problem proof, then he has made an attack on those other problems.
Also, his real attack on the Halting Problem is based on the somewhat hidden claim that there is something fundamentally wrong with the formation of the Halting Problem, and that allows him to redefine the problem, which it doesn't.
If he really wanted to work on that track, his first step needs to be to actually demonstrate an actual inconsistance that the Halting Problem generates, on the level of Russel's Naive Set Theory paradox, to provide grounds for wanting to re-establish the ground rules for the field. The problem is he knows his attempts at this didn't go well, but he won't admit it, so he just want to assume that we accept the proof, but we don't which is why ther is so much argument about "The Correct SImulation of D by H" as he thinks he is authorized to use that, when he isn't.
At best, he could talk about PO-halting (Which I call Peter Olcotts Other Problem, or POOP for short), but that doesn't help with his bigger goal.
His latest tactic of claiming that H can't understand the question is just more of his weirdness, showing how little he understand what Computations are. I think he somehow thinks "AI" can be the savior of the world.

-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer