Re: Can any pathological input thwart a simulating abort decider?

On 3/27/24 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/26/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2024 10:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/24 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:

>
<snip>
>

I am saying that H/D pairs where H simulates D that this D right here
not some other D somewhere else never reaches its own line 06.

>
Right. But that doesn't prove that the D is non-halting of H gives up on its simulation.
>

>
You always use the strawman deception on this.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS

>
And you have agreed that an "Abort Deciders" will decide based on if THIS DECIDER needs to abort THIS INPUT,

>
01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
>
This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
specified above.

>
H must do what H does.
>
First note, you have strayed from the actual definiton of the problem, (andthus are LYING about following it) because the specific D was DEFINED to use a specific COPY of the one decider it was designed to refute.
>
Your D ends up failing to even be a Computation, (when you limit the desciption of D to NOT include H) because its behavior is NOT fully defined.
>
Yes, any H that doesn't happen to abort its simulation is not a correct decider because it will fail to decide.
>
That DOESN'T mean that an H that does abort is correct, as every different H that is called by D creates a different behavior for D, and in effect, creates a "new" D, even though its description (by your stipulation) is the same, but that is because you have created a non-computation input, and for those, to determine there behavior, we need to include the appropriate extra "hidden" information, which in this case is the code of H.
>
Now, if H does abort and return 0, then it is clear that that makes a D(D) that will halt, as can be proved by having main call UTM(D,D) with that D still refering to that original H (which you keep on trying to lie about not being able to do).
>
Sincd that simulation will reach an end, then it is shown that these Hs don't actually NEED to abort, even though (or because of the fact) they do.
>
You can claim this make this an invalid question, and I would agree, because your D was built wrong. Build D the RIGHT way, with its own copy of H (that is fixed to be the H you finally decide on, and doesn't change during your argument) then the question is valid, and the H that D was built on is clearly wrong, and any other decider could have its own "pathelogical" input defined that makes IT wrong.
>

>

 based on if an actual CORRECT SIMULATION of THIS INPUT will run forever or Halt.
>
You are stuck with that definition if you want your "abort deciders" to be at all related to "Halt Deciders", which since you continue to refer to the Halting problem proofs, you do, you need to use THAT definition.
>
Any definition based on looking at the behavior of some other machine and input, is just illogical, but then, you have shown that you thinking goes to illogical ideas.
>

>
By that same reasoning cats have no common attributes and some cats
might bark and some cats might fly because not all cats are exactly
the same.

>
Not *NO* common attributes, but have some differences, so if you thing being looked at varies, then not all cat are the same.
>
For instance, not all cats are black.
>
You just don't seem to understand the nature of "Categories"
>

>

>

If that was all that was needed, ALL inputs could be correctly decided as non-halting.
>

>
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABORT DECIDERS

>
Right, based on the actual NEED for THIS decider to abort for this exact input.
>

>
This decider must abort this input when-so-ever this H/D pair is in
the set of H/D pairs where H simulates its input and D is defined as
specified above.

>
It must abort to be a decider.
>
Thst doesn't mean that if it does abort, it knows the right answer to the question about the input halting (or needing to be aborted).
>
They are NOT the same criteria,
>

>

Since, for our H(D,D) that is programmed to abort and return 0, the D(D)

>
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.
I never said that, about abort deciders I only said that H simulates D.

>
So, are you talking about the ones that do abort, or the ones that don't.
>
You DO understand that these are DIFFERENT programs, and each must be looked at individually.
>
The question is NOT about "classes of Deciders" pair with a "Class of Inputs".
>
The quesiton is about ONE SPECIFIC INPUT, and the answer that ONE SPECIFIC decider gives.
>
You are just proving you just don't know what you are talking about.
>

>

built on it will halt, then this H(D,D) did not NEED to abort it, but did.
>
>

>

>

Since H is supposed to be a "Halt Decider", the HALTING PROPERTY of the input is a very important and relevent fact.
>
I guess you think TRUTH isn't relevent, only whether you can make a convincing lie.
>

Milk and Cheese and not the same yet both are dairy products.

>
And Milk is a liquid and Cheese is a solid.
>
Try to make a glass og "Chocolate Cheese"
>
Or make a Pizza with "Milk" as a topping.
>

>

There is no reason to assume that ANY X are correct, that is your INCORRECT assumption,
>

>
All H that never halt have incorrect halting behavior for a decider.
All H that halt have correct halting behavior for a decider.

>
That may make them DECIDERS, but not a HALT DECIDER if they say non-halting for an input you have admitted is Halting.
>
You are just PROVING that you are just a pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
>

>
Are you willing to bet your soul on that?

>
Sure, are YOU?

>
I know that my soul is the one thing that I cannot afford
to lose, and what the Hell would I do with two souls when I win?
I would not bet my soul that 2 + 3 = 5.

>
Seems you have already lost it.
>
And you or I will not be the one to collect.
>

I don't believe that because a woman lied about her weight
by one pound one time that she will

>
No, and that isn't what a "Liar" is, the word means someone whose life is characterized by falsehoods. (like yours)
>

>
*Revelation 21:8 NRSV*
...and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with
fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’

>
Right, but you need to look at the context, HIS PEOPLE are not in that group, and I know that my name is in the
>

>
I also know that God <is> Love and God <has> Wrath is impossibly
true. It is the same as H2O <is> water and H2O <has> Carbon.
*I go by what makes the most sense*

>
And that just shows that you do not know him.
>
So, you WILL find that you will end in that lake of fire.
>

>
What seems to make the most sense is that we concatenate
"with as much empathy as possible" to the commandment to
"love one another" and abolish the distraction of all of the
other commandments so that we can unite in a single-minded
focus on loving others.

>
And all the other DERIVE from this, so they are not "abolished", but expalined.
>

>
Not shaving your sideburns is not derived from this.

>
How do you know this?
>
And where do you see a rule about "Sideburns?"
>

>
https://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-27.htm

>
Which doesn't talk about the "Sideburns" but perhaps the upper temple or the lower corners of the beard, as done by some pagan forms of worship.
>

 It is a Levitical ordinance that has nothing to do with loving
others as oneself.

Right, but does refer to loving the Lord your God, as in making his people distinct.
Note, that Levitical ordinance, does NOT carry into the new coventent, so Paul isn't refering to it.

 

The "Sideburns" tend to refer to a somewhat lower place on the side of the face.
>
So, you are MISTRANSLATING the word.
>
Also, that was part of the CEREMONIAL Law, a distinctive like circumcision that was done away with.
>

Yes you are good on this.
 I diligently make sure to totally ignore every law of God that
does not directly or indirectly pertain to loving others as myself.

And thus condemn yourself to the lake of FIRE.
Which is probably for the better, as you would find Heaven unbearable with having to willingly follow ALL of Gods Law would be intolerable.

 Love one another with as much empathy as possible is the only
law of God that I strive to obey. Focusing on anything else
is a dangerous distraction away from righteousness.

And thus not actually loving your neighor the way you need to.

 <snip>
 

>

I think you are making your normal misinterpertation of someone elses words.
>

>

You also forget that this is the SECOND most important commandment, the first is to Love the LORD with all your Heart, Mind, Strength, and Body.
>
Since you deny who he is, by considering youself somewhat of his equal, you have failed at that, which puts you STRAIGHT into Rev 21:8
>

>
*Galatians 5:14 NRSV*
For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,
‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’
>
The reason that I persist in my proofs is that righteousness
must be anchored in truth and humans have totally screwed up
the notion of truth with incompleteness and undecidability.

>
Which just shows that you don't understand the words of the Lord himself, when he said that if you HOLD to his teachings, then you I
will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
>
Note, you still have time, while you live, to repent of your sins and

>
If the only sin is not loving others as myself then I am covered.
I continually strive to love others with as much empathy as I can.

>
But it isn't, and even if it was, you aren't, because you don't understand what "Love your Neighbor".
>
Love your Neighbor has nothing to do with "Empathy", as the love being talked about here is NOT an "Emotion" or "Feeling" or the like, but a deliberate decision about priorities in your life.
>

>
https://biblehub.com/greek/26.htm
"a deliberate decision about priorities" YES
Priorities of benevolence.
>
The works enormously better with empathy as opposed to and contrast
with callous disregard.

>
CALLOUS DISREGARD is not love, neither is sentimental empathy.
>

 Empathy is not sentimental.
It is seeing things from the POV of others to the extent that
you can feel how they feel.

Which is

 This gets rid of the self-righteous judgementalism that far too
many people calling themselves Christian demonstrate.

Nope.

 

You can't remove a wrong definition with another wrong definition.
>
Just because you "feel" for or in sympathy

 Empathy is not freaking sympathy.

maybe you don't understand what Sympathy actually is.

 

for another does not mean you have made the right deliberate decision about priorities.
>

 If you cannot love others with empathy then you can't love
them correctly, AKA righteously.
 

>
Just as your LYING about what you are doing because you disagree with the results of proofs, doesn't change what those proofs have shown.
>

 Far too many people have zero ability to think outside the box
of historical misconceptions.

So? It seems you have put yourself into a straight jacket box that has killed your ability to reason.

 

>

It is also IMPOSSIBLE to have this sort of love for another until you understand the love that God has for you, and to accept and properly respond to it.
>

>
The "Love" of most Christians is judgmental, this taints it.

>
I agree, but that doesn't change the meaning of the statement.
>

 It makes loving others with empathy superior guidance because this
screens out self-righteous judgmentalism.

But make it so you don't actually need to love them the way you are told to.
You are just lying to yourself again, because you don't understand the meaning of the words,

 

Remember, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian, is actually one.
>
Remember the dividing of the Sheep and the Goats.
>