Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: No decider is allowed to report on the behavior of the
 computation that itself is contained within (LIE)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 07:29:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2n9bj$1qo0t$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <EOydnaeszcdfHS__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <PtvsK.300027$5fVf.158200@fx09.iad>
 <CaWdnZEntLawFS__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <ccb8af3c-e497-4d6e-8040-826a4e87a6e7n@googlegroups.com>
 <g9qdnRjZj9uBlS7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <0f7ed34c-5aaa-4858-885e-66e16777f599n@googlegroups.com>
 <87a6a44s02.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <a9adde1d-ad2c-444c-9b14-88841f5e8783n@googlegroups.com>
 <87sfnv2e6e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <3a337f21-4828-46c4-b5be-87c76cff9db4n@googlegroups.com>
 <v2lnh0$1c0ls$1@dont-email.me> <v2lth6$1nrfv$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2m8e0$1ievj$1@dont-email.me> <v2m9iu$1qo0t$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2m9u6$1ievj$3@dont-email.me> <v2ma6a$1qo0t$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2mb28$1io97$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 11:29:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1925149"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v2mb28$1io97$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7194
Lines: 143

On 5/22/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/22/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/24 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/22/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/22/24 5:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2022 2:53 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>> He's dry-run P(P) and established that it doesn't halt. He's 
>>>>>>>> invoked H on it
>>>>>>>> and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run P(P) and it halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So something odd is going on there that needs an explanation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>>>> *MUCH BETTER WORDS THAN ONE YEAR AGO*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly 
>>>>>>> emulates
>>>>>>> at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified 
>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>> x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
>>>>>>> recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is trivial to see that for every H/D pair of the infinite
>>>>>>> set of H/D pairs that match the above template that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>> state at line 06 and halt because D correctly simulated by
>>>>>>> H remains stuck in recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deciders are only accountable for the behavior of their inputs
>>>>>>> and are thus not allowed to report on the behavior of the 
>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>> that they themselves are contained within.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. "Behavior of their inputss" MEANS for Turing Machines that are 
>>>>>> computing properties of Turing Machines (like Halt Deciders) have 
>>>>>> the "behavior of their input" defined as the Behavior of the 
>>>>>> machine their input represents/describes/specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Only specifies and no matter how many times you deny it,
>>>>> it remains a verified fact that:
>>>>> the input to H
>>>>> the input to H
>>>>> the input to H
>>>>> the input to H
>>>>> the input to H
>>>>> the input to H
>>>>> the input to H
>>>>> specifies that it never reaches its own final state and halts.
>>>>
>>>> No since when the input is run, 
>>>
>>> *That has nothing to do with*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>> *The behavior that the input to H specifies*
>>>
>>
>> Sure it does.
>>
>> What else does the question: Does the program described to the decider 
>> halt mean other than that?
> 
> *That is the FREAKING WRONG QUESTION*

Then you aren't talking about the HALTING PROBLEM.

You don't get to tell people the problem they want to solve is the wrong 
problem, and it is a LIE to say some other different problem answers the 
one they have.

> 
> *NO ONE KNEW THAT IS WAS THE WRONG QUESTION*
> *ONLY BECAUSE EVERYONE REJECTED A SIMULATING*
> *TERMINATION ANALYZER OUT-OF-HAND WITHOUT REVIEW*

NO, because your "Termination Analyzers" don't solve the problem that 
was being asked of the Halting Decider.

> 
> D of every H/D pair where D is correctly simulated
> by H cannot possibly reach is own line 06 and halt.

And who cares abot that, if it can be true but when we actually run D(D) 
it halts.

> 
> The failure to provide a counter-example will be
> construed as proof of this.
> 

Your last claim == proof that you don't understand how logic works.

You have wasted your last 20 years, because you just didn't understand 
what you were talking about.

You have turned yourself into a pathological liar because you have 
taught yourself to ignore things that disagree with you, and you pretend 
they don't exist, and then you think you can correctly say they don't, 
when it is just a lie.

Your are worse then the election deniers. You refuse to look at the 
evidence. At least there claim has a possibility of having a chance to 
be logically true, since absence of proof is not a proof of absence, and 
there could be a deep state lying machine hiding the evidence.

In your case, evidence is put before you, but you just can't understand 
it because you have closed your mind to to truth.