Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩

On 5/27/2024 9:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/27/24 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/27/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/26/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/26/2024 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/26/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/26/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/26/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/26/2024 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
  Ĥ copies its own Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩
  then invokes embedded_H that simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ with ⟨Ĥ⟩ as input.
>
It is an easily verified fact that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by
embedded_H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final state of
⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in any finite sequence of steps.

>
*To other reviewers that are not dishonest*
The complete proof of the above statement is that when we hypothesize
that embedded_H is a UTM we can see that:

>
i.e. when we assume it is something it isn't, i.e we LIE to ourselves.
>
If you assume embedded_H is something it isn't,

>
Not at all.
*It looks like you may be utterly clueless about what-if scenarios*

You can only ask what-ifs about things that are possible.
>

>
What-if embedded_H was a UTM would ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated
by embedded_H reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ ?
(a) YES
(b) NO
(c) DISHONEST HONEST ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT

>
So, If your H was a UTM, and H^ built on that, then embedded_H would be a UTM and H^ (H^) would be non-halting as would H (H^) (H^).
>

>
*Great this is a step of progress*
This conclusively proves that ⟨Ĥ⟩ will not reach ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ is less than
an infinite number of steps. A decider is not allowed to simulate
an infinite number of steps.

>
First, it doesn't "Prove" it,

>
*Sure it does, you just like to deny verified facts*

 Nope, someone saying something doesn't prove it to be true.
 

Because I am a relatively terrible communicator my words need constant
improvement. *These words here are the clearest ones yet*
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         H(D,D);
12         return 0;
13       }
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
was being referred to.
*Correct Simulation Defined*
    This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
    correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
    A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
    x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
    of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
    emulating D.
When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
line 06 and halt.
I must continue to improve the clarity of words to the point
that *INTENTIONAL MISINTERPRETATION* looks utterly ridiculous.
*The dishonest dodge strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT*
*fake rebuttal already looks utterly ridiculous*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer