Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP

On 5/16/25 11:19 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 9:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/16/25 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2025 8:25 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 May 2025 12:22:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/14/2025 12:15 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 14/05/2025 17:43, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 14/05/2025 17:04, olcott wrote:
>

The HP proofs require an input D that can actually do the opposite
of whatever value that H returns. Such an input cannot possibly
exist.

Agreed. That is precisely what Turing proved.

The proof itself cannot exist because it is missing a key element.

>
Yes, it is missing the halt decider.
>

When you try to encode *AN INPUT* that actually does the opposite of
whatever value that its termination analyzer returns in a fully
specified language such as C you will find this is impossible.

DD is exactly that.
>

In a less fully specified language it is far too easy to get confused
about what *AN INPUT* is and what it is not.

DD (or its code) calling the aborting HHH is the input.
>

>
int main()
{
   DD(); // Only idiots expect HHH to report on its caller.
}
>

>
Only PATHOLOGICAL LIARS excpet that the call HHH(DD) doesn't mean to answer about what the actual DD does when run,
>
Oh, I guess that answers who you are.
>
You just admitted that you think the truth is idiotic.

 Mike explains all of the details of how the
Sipser quote does derive a correct Simulating Halt Decider.

No, which derives a Simulating Halt Decider that was correct for a single different input (but can be correct for a broad category of inputs, but not all).
Since being a Correct Simulating Halt Decider means being totally correct for ALL input, that condition hasn't been established, and has been proven to not be establishable.
What this shows is that you have a fundamental (or is it a funny mental) issue with how Universal Conditionals work, as shown by your believe in proof by example for proving something works for ALL cases.
Sorry, that just shows your ignorance.

 On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
 > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
 >
 > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
 > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
 > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
 > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
 > in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
 > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
 *Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/? STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
 Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>