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

On 6/21/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 3:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jun.2024 om 18:28 schreef olcott:

On 6/20/2024 11:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

>

Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means.

>

I really don't care what you believe.
It is not about belief.
It is about correct reasoning.

>
No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present
your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your
reasoning is correct.
>

I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people
that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace
through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding
none.

>

You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature.
We found many errors.
>

>
All the "errors" that have been pointed out are mere
dogmatic assertions that state that my conclusion is
inconsistent with the conclusions stated in textbooks.
>
The only other "errors" that were pointed out flatly
disagree with verified facts.
>

>
No one ever verified these facts. We know that in your language 'verified facts' means 'my wishes'.

 On 6/20/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 6/20/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>
 >> It also looks like you fail to comprehend that it is possible
 >> for a simulating termination analyzer to recognize inputs that
 >> would never terminate by recognizing the repeating state of
 >> these inputs after a finite number of steps of correct simulation.
 >
 > Right, but they don't do it by "Correctly Simulating" the
 > input, but by a PARTIAL simulation that provides the needed
 > information to prove that an ACTUAL CORRECT (and complete)
 > simulation of that input would not halt.
 >

Which just shos your logic is based on lies and misinterpreting things.
Yes, a decider can sometimes correctly detect that a non-halting machine is non-halting by a partial simulation, and then logic showing that the actual correct simulation would go on forever.
But, as normal, your logic reverses things and gets wrongs answers. The fact that no H can simulate the instance of a template based on its self to a final state doesn't show that any of the instances are non-halting.
ALL of those instances, when the decider does decide to abort its simulation (and thus it doesn't do a simulation that correctly reveals the behavior of the machine by itself) when simulated by an actual correct simulator, will reach an end.
This shows that your decide was NEVER able to CORRECTLY determine that its particular input was non-halting, and that its correct simulation would never reach an end, unless of course, your logic allows you to "Correctly Determine" a wrong answer, as it seems yours does, which just means it has totally blown its self up into smitherines of contradicitions.

 

Many errors were pointed out to you, but you prefer to ignore them, probably because your prejudice has already made up your mind that they must be wrong, so you did not bother to think about them.