Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFZlcmlmaWVkIGZhY3QgdGhhdCDEpC5IIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4p+pIGFuZCBIIOKfqMSk4p+pIOKfqMSk4p+pIGhhdmUgZGlmZmVyZW50IGJlaGF2?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ior_--Foundations--?=
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:25:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 438
Message-ID: <usn49b$3lhv0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <usia2e$2f2pd$1@dont-email.me> <usit21$2j3c8$1@dont-email.me>
 <usiufa$2j99n$1@dont-email.me> <usiukh$2jaj3$1@dont-email.me>
 <usiuup$2jdc7$2@dont-email.me> <usj254$2jutc$2@dont-email.me>
 <usj2e3$2jut2$1@dont-email.me> <usj2je$2jutc$3@dont-email.me>
 <usj2rs$2jut2$2@dont-email.me> <usj32s$2k5id$1@dont-email.me>
 <usjd20$2plge$1@dont-email.me> <usjef5$1cf5q$6@i2pn2.org>
 <usjfj8$2q613$1@dont-email.me> <usjgs6$1cf5q$7@i2pn2.org>
 <usjhks$2qhfq$1@dont-email.me> <usjj7v$1cf5q$8@i2pn2.org>
 <uskg1p$30hr1$1@dont-email.me> <KEkHN.386271$vFZa.185803@fx13.iad>
 <uskog1$32h3c$1@dont-email.me> <uskpe3$32l00$1@dont-email.me>
 <uskq04$32h3c$3@dont-email.me> <usksvk$33a1p$5@dont-email.me>
 <uskubp$33lov$3@dont-email.me> <usl0u7$34bnj$1@dont-email.me>
 <usljen$385ff$1@dont-email.me> <hItHN.366352$q3F7.153154@fx45.iad>
 <uslrcc$3d3q0$1@dont-email.me> <uslsgn$1enef$20@i2pn2.org>
 <usm1ib$3ebq5$1@dont-email.me> <usm3ho$1enef$23@i2pn2.org>
 <usm5h9$3f27j$1@dont-email.me> <usm7mf$1enef$26@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:25:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1568d5e95fd7d0d459fb89959682569c";
	logging-data="3852256"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CAciZELkOHFVGyBGOnfG0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zoS2cN64tYIIGw0E+1F/Q/dDN18=
In-Reply-To: <usm7mf$1enef$26@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 20239

On 3/11/2024 1:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/10/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/11/2024 12:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/10/24 9:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/10/24 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/24 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 2:16 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 19:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2024 1:08 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/03/24 18:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as 
>>>>>>>>>>>> unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not sound?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decide that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Their input halts H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Their input fails to halt or has a pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to itself H.qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "Pathological Relationship" is ALLOWED.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ZFC simply tossed out the Russell's Paradox question as unsound
>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly disallowing the "Pathological Relationship".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that some Turing machines are not real 
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only claiming that both H and Ĥ.H correctly say YES
>>>>>>>>>>>> when their input halts and correctly say NOT YES otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> well the halting problem requires them to correctly say NO, 
>>>>>>>>>>> so you haven't solved it
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All decision problem instances of program/input such that both
>>>>>>>>>> yes and no are the wrong answer toss out the input as invalid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I noticed that you gave up on Olcott machines and now you are 
>>>>>>>>> back to your old bullshit ways of pretending that the same 
>>>>>>>>> machine can produce two different execution traces on the same 
>>>>>>>>> input. Why don't you show us an execution trace where that 
>>>>>>>>> happens? Both traces must show the first instruction that is 
>>>>>>>>> different in both traces and I recommend showing 20 more 
>>>>>>>>> instructions after that, but you can abort one after that time, 
>>>>>>>>> if it doesn't halt, to prevent the trace getting infinitely long.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Turing Machines and Olcott machines cannot properly implement
>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) and H(D,D) that know their own machine address.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My C code proves these two have different behavior:
>>>>>>>> (a) H1(D,D) + H1_machine_address
>>>>>>>> (b) H(D,D) + H_machine_address
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because they are different computations they are
>>>>>>>> not required to have the same behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, but it also means that since the dfference is because of a 
>>>>>>> "Hidden" input none of them qualify as a Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The key input (the machines own address) is not hidden
>>>>>> merely unavailable to Turing machine and Olcott machines.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if it isn't hidden, then the other copies that take use a 
>>>>> different address become different computations and can't claim to 
>>>>> fill in for THE H.
>>>>>
>>>>> You then prove each copy wrong by giving it the version of H^/D 
>>>>> that is built on it, which it will get wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the other ones might get it right, showing that there IS a 
>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) immediately sees the first time it calls itself
>>>>>>>> with its same inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) never sees it call itself with its same inputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Full Execution trace of H1(D,D)
>>>>>>>> (a) main() invokes H1(D,D)
>>>>>>>> (b) H1(D,D) simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>> (c) Simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D)
>>>>>>>> (d) Simulated H(D,D) simulates another D(D)
>>>>>>>> (e) Simulated H(D,D) aborts this D(D) when it would call itself
>>>>>>>> (f) Simulated H(D,D) returns 0 to simulated caller D(D)
>>>>>>>> (g) Simulated caller D(D) returns to H1(D,D)
>>>>>>>> (h) H1(D,D) returns 1 to main()
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They cannot be implemented as Turing Machines or Olcott
>>>>>>>> Machines. They can be implemented as RASP machines proven
>>>>>>>> by the fact that they are implemented as C functions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, which proves your C functions also were never the required 
>>>>>>> computation, as they has an extra "hidden" input. As has been 
>>>>>>> told to you many times in the past.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I specify that every machine can know its own machine address
>>>>>> in x86 machines and (possibly augmented) RASP machines then it is
>>>>>> not hidden and an explicitly part of the input to the computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if it isn't hidden, then the other copies that take use a 
>>>>> different address become different computations and can't claim to 
>>>>> fill in for THE H.
>>>>>
>>>>> You then prove each copy wrong by giving it the version of H^/D 
>>>>> that is built on it, which it will get wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the other ones might get it right, showing that there IS a 
>>>>> correct answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you just admitted that you hae just been lying for all these 
>>>>>>> years, and you are no closer to your fantasy goal then you ever 
>>>>>>> were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, you just don't know enough to do this problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just admitted that it took me about two years to translate my
>>>>>> intuitions into words that address your objections.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For these two years you and many other people claimed that H1(D,D)
>>>>>> could not possibly do what it actually did actually do. This has
>>>>>> always been the same thing as disagreeing with arithmetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can't do it and be the SAME COMPUTATION as H, which is what you 
>>>>> were claiming.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It did actually do exactly what I claimed and everyone wanted
>>>> to stick to their opinion and deny the actual facts that it
>>>> did actually do what I said.
>>>
>>> It might have done what you THOUGHT you were saying, but it doesn't 
>>> do what you ACTUALLY SAID.
>>>
>>
>> I always claimed that H1(D,D) returns 1 and H(D,D) returns 0 and you
>> always said it was impossible even though that is what actual code
>> actually did. The code always discloses that H and H1 have their own 
>> address.
> 
> No, we said it was impossible if they were the COMPUTATIONS you were 
> claiming them to be.
> 

I never ever claimed that they were the same computation.

> That was expalined, and you ignored it, so it wasn't an "Honest 
> Mistake", but a willful disreguard for the truth, and thus a LIE.
> 
You never ever bothered to look at the code proving that it was correct.

> You apparently STILL don't understand that term, and seam to prefer just 
> wasting. you time spinning your wheels on falsehoods, then being willing 
> to spend justa bit of time to learn the meaning of the basic words of 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========