XPost: sci.logic

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
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.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>> *pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at >>>>>>>>> line 06 and halt.

Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since >>>>>>>> your outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be
compatible with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also
eventually return 0.


Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does
exactly the same as the H that is deciding it.

OK, good.

Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it matters what >>>>>> THIS D does, and this D calls aths H.

Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing Pure
Functions.

<snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.

Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the >>>>>>>>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things >>>>>>>>>> well defined.

YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to >>>>>>>>>> write for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't
actually match the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close). >>>>>>>>>>
With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that >>>>>>>>>> break your incorrectly assumed results.

The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the >>>>>>>>>> final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first >>>>>>>>>> part of the method DOES show that it is possible for an H to >>>>>>>>>> simulate to past line 3.

THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of >>>>>>>>>> M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of >>>>>>>>>> just saying it will get stuck and declair the input invalid, >>>>>>>>>> since there ARE a number of possible inputs that there is a >>>>>>>>>> "correct" answer that H can give to

That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation.
That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
to prove non-halting recursive simulation.

Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.

That is off-topic for this post.
All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H
ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.

*In other different post not this one*

I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want to
reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless.

*POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION*

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
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.

Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01:
Line 02:
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
pure function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly reach its
own final state at line 06 and halt.

Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H

*Counter-factual, try again*
We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term:
"simulate" is expressly defined.

And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H?

This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.

If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like
to see it. All of the experts that I could find seem to agree
that all pure functions in C would be computable functions
by a Turing machine.

So, you just don't understand that "Computable Function" is a
Term-of-the-art to talk about the mathematical mapping, an NOT the
algorithm that shows the mapping is computable.

One key point that make "Pure Functions" not necessarily equivalent to a
Turing Machine is the ability to get "hidden inputs" from things like
their own program address, something a Turing Machine doesn't have.

This is what made your H and H1, even though "exact copies" of each
other (by using x86 instructions that access this otherwise hidden
information in a way that make it not obvious), act differently, when
two identical copies of Turing Machines ALWAYS act the same for the same
input.

So, YOU YOURSELF have provided the counter-example, but were too stupid
to understand it.

I skimmed the rest of your posts and they were mostly
trying to get away with changing the subject to divert
attention away from the point at hand in this subject line.

I will not discuss and theory of computation stuff with you
until after you quit playing head games with the subject
of this post.

*THINKING THE WRONG ANSWERS ARE ALLOWED IS A HEAD GAME*
*THINKING THE WRONG ANSWERS ARE ALLOWED IS A HEAD GAME*
*THINKING THE WRONG ANSWERS ARE ALLOWED IS A HEAD GAME*

On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:

Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of
{D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H}

No, the H that didn't simulate its input shows that
*once you allow H to not be required to be correct*,
that we can then have a trivial function that is
"just as correct" (since wrong answers were allowed).

I am glad to see that it turned out that you were not a liar.
That was very reassuring. Seems to be a liar to me until I see
proof otherwise is not the same thing as calling you a liar.

Which just makes you a pathological liar, because you have a reckless
disregard for the truth, PRESUMING without the need of evidence.

Note, you positively claimed for two weeks that I did not say what I
claimed to. Since I showed that I did, that you PROVES you LIED for
those two weeks, and you just admitted that you were doing so.

Note, "Honest Mistake" does not ignore what someone says.

If you think it is fun to endlessly talk in circles then
you will get very little dialogue with me.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly
simulated by
*pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at >>>>>>>>>>> line 06 and halt.

Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that since >>>>>>>>>> your outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must be
compatible with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will also >>>>>>>>>> eventually return 0.


Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does >>>>>>>>>> exactly the same as the H that is deciding it.

OK, good.

Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it matters
what THIS D does, and this D calls aths H.

Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing Pure >>>>>>>> Functions.

<snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative.

Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change >>>>>>>>>>>> the definition from the classical theory, where we have >>>>>>>>>>>> things well defined.

YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to >>>>>>>>>>>> write for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> actually match the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close). >>>>>>>>>>>>
With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that >>>>>>>>>>>> break your incorrectly assumed results.

The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While >>>>>>>>>>>> the final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the >>>>>>>>>>>> first part of the method DOES show that it is possible for >>>>>>>>>>>> an H to simulate to past line 3.

THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> of M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea >>>>>>>>>>>> of just saying it will get stuck and declair the input >>>>>>>>>>>> invalid, since there ARE a number of possible inputs that >>>>>>>>>>>> there is a "correct" answer that H can give to

That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem
to prove non-halting recursive simulation.

Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.

That is off-topic for this post.
All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H
ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.

*In other different post not this one*

I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want to
reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless.

*POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION*

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
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.

Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01:
Line 02:
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) >>>>>
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03. >>>>>
For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by
pure function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly reach
its own final state at line 06 and halt.

Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H

*Counter-factual, try again*
We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term:
"simulate" is expressly defined.

And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H?

That does not matter as long as it is not impossible.

But since you claim you did it, you need to show what you did.

The problem is you don't seem to understand that somethings ARE impossible.

Like building a Turing Machine that always correctly determines if
another Turing Machine/Input combination will halt.

Your claims that you make one that answers the proof case, is just
proven to be a lie, and your proof is based on first assuming it is
possible and then using that "fact" to try to prove your answer, which
is just the thing you claim you are not allowed to do.

Thus, it is proven that you whole concept is just built on inconsistant
lies.

This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.

If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like
to see it. All of the experts that I could find seem to agree
that all pure functions in C would be computable functions
by a Turing machine.

So, you just don't understand that "Computable Function" is a
Term-of-the-art to talk about the mathematical mapping, an NOT the
algorithm that shows the mapping is computable.

Pure functions <are> Turing computable functions until you
conclusively prove otherwise.

So, you still don't understand the meaning of the words.

Your claim is like saying that cats are 10 story office building.

One key point that make "Pure Functions" not necessarily equivalent to
a Turing Machine is the ability to get "hidden inputs" from things
like their own program address, something a Turing Machine doesn't have.

*That is irrelevant to the current post*
*You can always look at the title and see if you went off topic*

No, you keep making the error, and thus destroy your arguement.

*This boiler plate will be the only reply*
I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be
analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where you
are going, it is hard to find the path.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/21/24 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 7:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by
*pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final state at >>>>>>>>>>>>> line 06 and halt.

Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that >>>>>>>>>>>> since your outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic must >>>>>>>>>>>> be compatible with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) will >>>>>>>>>>>> also eventually return 0.


Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does >>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same as the H that is deciding it.

OK, good.

Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it matters >>>>>>>>>> what THIS D does, and this D calls aths H.

Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing >>>>>>>>>> Pure Functions.

<snip so that Message ID links to whole message>
We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition from the classical theory, where we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things well defined.

YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to write for it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually match the Linz or Sipser proof, but fairly close). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> break your incorrectly assumed results.

The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the final answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first part of the method DOES show that it is possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for an H to simulate to past line 3.

THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of just saying it will get stuck and declair the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid, since there ARE a number of possible inputs that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is a "correct" answer that H can give to

That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem >>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.

Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.

That is off-topic for this post.
All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H
ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.

*In other different post not this one*

I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible >>>>>>>>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want to >>>>>>>> reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless.

*POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION*

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
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.

Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01:
Line 02:
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D) >>>>>>>
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated by >>>>>>> pure function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly reach >>>>>>> its own final state at line 06 and halt.

Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H

*Counter-factual, try again*
We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term:
"simulate" is expressly defined.

And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H?

That does not matter as long as it is not impossible.

But since you claim you did it, you need to show what you did.

I cannot show the behavior of every element of an infinite set
a c function pairs.

So, didn't you say that needing infinite operations to evaluate made
something not a truth beared?

The problem is you don't seem to understand that somethings ARE
impossible.

It is certainly not impossible for pure function H to correctly
simulate D.

No, but it is impossible for a pure function H to correctly simulate
this D built on that H by the definition of Computation Theory AND
provide an answer.

Like building a Turing Machine that always correctly determines if
another Turing Machine/Input combination will halt.

Your claims that you make one that answers the proof case, is just
proven to be a lie, and your proof is based on first assuming it is
possible and then using that "fact" to try to prove your answer, which
is just the thing you claim you are not allowed to do.

In the last two years I have not even exaggerated.
Lets call a truce on accusations of lying you eventually
proved that you were not lying about this key point and I
updated my spec to address the issue that you raised.

Really, how many times did you say that I did not provide a counter example?

I made sure to not call you a liar on this. I said that until
proved otherwise I will assume that you are a liar and then
you proved otherwise.

But you continued to assert a statement that was untrue, even though it
was proved incorrect, you LATER changed your definition to try to get
around my answer,

You still haven't refuted the first method.

Thus, it is proven that you whole concept is just built on
inconsistant lies.

This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.

If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like
to see it. All of the experts that I could find seem to agree
that all pure functions in C would be computable functions
by a Turing machine.

So, you just don't understand that "Computable Function" is a
Term-of-the-art to talk about the mathematical mapping, an NOT the
algorithm that shows the mapping is computable.

Pure functions <are> Turing computable functions until you
conclusively prove otherwise.

So, you still don't understand the meaning of the words.

Try and point out the specific error and I will correct any
mistake that you find. Until you provide a basis I will assume
that your claim is baseless.

"Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must be
per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM, which
means it does not stop.

A "Computable Function" isn't a program, but a mathematical concept of a mapping from the input set to the output set for which there exists an
finite algoritm that computes it. (The program is that algorithm, not
the Function).

Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly
equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes copies of
the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the requirements
of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it requires that ALL COPIES
return the same answer for the same inputs.

Also, it is possible for an algorithm to violate the definiton of a
"Pure Function" in certain limited manners, and still be a proper
algorithm, the key is that the definition of an algorithm is a strictly
Input to Output relationship, and doesn't talk about how the answer is
given.

Your claim is like saying that cats are 10 story office building.

One key point that make "Pure Functions" not necessarily equivalent
to a Turing Machine is the ability to get "hidden inputs" from
things like their own program address, something a Turing Machine
doesn't have.

*That is irrelevant to the current post*
*You can always look at the title and see if you went off topic*

No, you keep making the error, and thus destroy your arguement.

Since I am only responding to you via this single thread I
don't have to cut off the first divergence from the title.

*This boiler plate will be the only reply*
I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be
analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where
you are going, it is hard to find the path.

The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
will continue to assume this.

But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.

You seem to favor baseless rhetoric because you know that baseless
rhetoric with ad hominem mixed in is very convincing for gullible fools. Gullible fools are outside of my target audience.

Nope, your deception seems to be an attempt to go after gullible fools.

If you where honest, you could post you whole arguement and let it be
worked on.

From your past, the reason you need to break the arguement into pieces
is you need to seperate to logic to allow a change of definition between
the sections.

For instance, you definition here of correct simulation means your
results can not be used to show non-halting.

My guess is in a later section, you will pull out the rule that if a
correct simulation doesn't reach a final state, the input is
non-halting, which is just a LIE because you have changed definition mid
proof.

This has been your history.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/21/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 7:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by
*pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state at
line 06 and halt.

Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since your outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be compatible with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will also eventually return 0.


Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same as the H that is deciding it.

OK, good.

Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it
matters what THIS D does, and this D calls aths H.

Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing >>>>>>>>>>>> Pure Functions.

<snip so that Message ID links to whole message> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the definition from the classical theory, where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have things well defined.

YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to write for it, and D is the input proved. (which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't actually match the Linz or Sipser proof, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly close).

With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that break your incorrectly assumed results.

The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While the final answer he got to doesn't fit the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements, the first part of the method DOES show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is possible for an H to simulate to past line 3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that your idea of just saying it will get stuck and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declair the input invalid, since there ARE a number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can give to

That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.

Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.

That is off-topic for this post.
All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.

*In other different post not this one*

I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work >>>>>>>>>>> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible >>>>>>>>>>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow. >>>>>>>>>>

But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want >>>>>>>>>> to reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>

*POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION* >>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
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.

Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01:
Line 02:
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates >>>>>>>>> D(D)

Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own >>>>>>>>> line 03.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>> by pure function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>> reach its own final state at line 06 and halt.

Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H

*Counter-factual, try again*
We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term:
"simulate" is expressly defined.

And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H?

That does not matter as long as it is not impossible.

But since you claim you did it, you need to show what you did.

I cannot show the behavior of every element of an infinite set
a c function pairs.

So, didn't you say that needing infinite operations to evaluate made
something not a truth beared?

The problem is you don't seem to understand that somethings ARE
impossible.

It is certainly not impossible for pure function H to correctly
simulate D.

No, but it is impossible for a pure function H to correctly simulate
this D built on that H by the definition of Computation Theory AND
provide an answer.

At this point we are only looking at H as a simulator.
We can have this H return the meaningless 56.

Like building a Turing Machine that always correctly determines if
another Turing Machine/Input combination will halt.

Your claims that you make one that answers the proof case, is just
proven to be a lie, and your proof is based on first assuming it is
possible and then using that "fact" to try to prove your answer,
which is just the thing you claim you are not allowed to do.

In the last two years I have not even exaggerated.
Lets call a truce on accusations of lying you eventually
proved that you were not lying about this key point and I
updated my spec to address the issue that you raised.

Really, how many times did you say that I did not provide a counter
example?

You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

Because why do I need to provide a pointer to a message you read and
ignored.

Note, I kept on saying I would give it under a condition, one that I am
going to hold you to, that you admit that you have been wrong about your
claims that others haven't refuted you.

ANYTIME form now one that you make that claim, I can point out that you
have been wrong about this in the past.

I made sure to not call you a liar on this. I said that until
proved otherwise I will assume that you are a liar and then
you proved otherwise.

But you continued to assert a statement that was untrue, even though
it was proved incorrect, you LATER changed your definition to try to
get around my answer,

You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

Because you refued to make the pledge not to use the false arguement
that you have not be refuted.

You still haven't refuted the first method.

Sure I have this H is ONLY simulator thus the first method
loses its basis.

Why is that? Isn't a valid simulation (one that your own H uses) is to
replace the call to H with an "equivalent" response. WHy else do you
list the simulation of the call H as the results of the simulation that
H does.

So, by your claim above, your H isn't allowed to presume by its logic
that a call to H will not return, as that isn't a "simulation" of the input.

Only by moving the goal posts, do you try to argue.

Note, this is why I am asking for you to come up with a PRECISE
specification of what you are claiming to do.

Thus, it is proven that you whole concept is just built on
inconsistant lies.

This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.

If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like
to see it. All of the experts that I could find seem to agree
that all pure functions in C would be computable functions
by a Turing machine.

So, you just don't understand that "Computable Function" is a
Term-of-the-art to talk about the mathematical mapping, an NOT the >>>>>> algorithm that shows the mapping is computable.

Pure functions <are> Turing computable functions until you
conclusively prove otherwise.

So, you still don't understand the meaning of the words.

Try and point out the specific error and I will correct any
mistake that you find. Until you provide a basis I will assume
that your claim is baseless.

"Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must be
per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM, which
means it does not stop.

It is essentially trivial to see that D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own final state at line 06 because
D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

Which, due to your now clarified definition of what you mean by
"correctly simulated" means absolutly NOTHING in regards to the behavior
of the input.

A "Computable Function" isn't a program, but a mathematical concept of
a mapping from the input set to the output set for which there exists
an finite algoritm that computes it. (The program is that algorithm,
not the Function).

How do we tell if a C function is Turing Computable?

That Term doesn't apply to C funcitons at all, but to mathematical mappings.

Do you mean the computational equivalent of a Turing Machine?

Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly
equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes copies
of the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the
requirements of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it requires
that ALL COPIES return the same answer for the same inputs.

These H/D pairs only simulate.

And thus your logic has divorsed itself from behavior of the machine
described by the input, since your simulation is not "Correct" by the
correct meaning.

Also, it is possible for an algorithm to violate the definiton of a
"Pure Function" in certain limited manners, and still be a proper
algorithm, the key is that the definition of an algorithm is a
strictly Input to Output relationship, and doesn't talk about how the
answer is given.

I am saying that it must be a pure function.

And you would be wrong. I can show functions the Computational
Equivalent of a Turing Machine that violate the requirement of not using
static memory.

Your claim is like saying that cats are 10 story office building.

One key point that make "Pure Functions" not necessarily
equivalent to a Turing Machine is the ability to get "hidden
inputs" from things like their own program address, something a
Turing Machine doesn't have.

*That is irrelevant to the current post*
*You can always look at the title and see if you went off topic*

No, you keep making the error, and thus destroy your arguement.

Since I am only responding to you via this single thread I
don't have to cut off the first divergence from the title.

*This boiler plate will be the only reply*
I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be
analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where
you are going, it is hard to find the path.

The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
will continue to assume this.

But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.

I stated it perfectly and the proof of this is that
you did not point to any gaps in my spec.

Nope.

You seem to favor baseless rhetoric because you know that baseless
rhetoric with ad hominem mixed in is very convincing for gullible fools. >>> Gullible fools are outside of my target audience.

Nope, your deception seems to be an attempt to go after gullible fools.

THE ONLY REASON THAT I WORK ON THIS IS TO MATHEMATICALLY
FORMALIZE THE NOTION OF TRUTH ITSELF SO THAT THE NAZI
LIARS CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR LIES.

But since your logic is based on LIES, like that H(D,D) is allowed to
say its input is non-halting when D(D) Halts, that seems unlikely.

If you where honest, you could post you whole arguement and let it be
worked on.

WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS THREAD.

You said otherwise.

 From your past, the reason you need to break the arguement into
pieces is you need to seperate to logic to allow a change of
definition between the sections.

IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE
ENDLESS DEFECTION

So, why do you waste so much digging your heals on triva.

Just answer the questions and we can move on.

For instance, you definition here of correct simulation means your
results can not be used to show non-halting.

WE CAN GET TO THIS POINT AFTER WE FINISH THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE ENDLESS DEFECTION

Then you don't have time to just repeat the same request over and over.

My guess is in a later section, you will pull out the rule that if a
correct simulation doesn't reach a final state, the input is
non-halting, which is just a LIE because you have changed definition
mid proof.

This has been your history.

It is trivial to see 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.

Unless H aborts its simulation, which it must do to answer. And, since
it does, that means the partial simulation it does, doesn't show that
the machine in non-halting.

This is one reason you need to clarify you exact meaning. Since you have implied that your goal is about halting, you are stuck with the
definitions from that, and to allow deviations, we need EXPLICIT
agreement that these results can not be then just used to show
non-halting, as that would be a lie.

Of course, if you admit that you aren't working on deciding halting,
then you have just wasted you 20 years, so showing that you can POOP
decider this one machine doesn't mean anything. The non-computability of Halting still can be used for all of the proofs it is part of.

And, if you want to revamp the logic system with new definitions, you
are working at the wrong end, you need to go to the foundations, and
start there, and fully define the axioms you are going to be using.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

Op 22.mei.2024 om 04:05 schreef olcott:

On 5/21/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 7:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by
*pure function* H cannot possibly reach its own final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state at
line 06 and halt.

Ok, so adding that H is a pure function, that means that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since your outer H(D,D) is going to return 0, all logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be compatible with the fact that EVERY call to H(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will also eventually return 0.


Remember also, THIS D is defined to call THIS H, that does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the same as the H that is deciding it.

OK, good.

Right, so it doesn't matter what any other D does, it
matters what THIS D does, and this D calls aths H.

Remember, you reinstated the Computation model by enforcing >>>>>>>>>>>> Pure Functions.

<snip so that Message ID links to whole message> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can use my unique time/date stamp as an alternative. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the definition from the classical theory, where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have things well defined.

YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to write for it, and D is the input proved. (which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't actually match the Linz or Sipser proof, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fairly close).

With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that break your incorrectly assumed results.

The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While the final answer he got to doesn't fit the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements, the first part of the method DOES show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is possible for an H to simulate to past line 3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of M(d) get to a call to H(M,d) then rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that your idea of just saying it will get stuck and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declair the input invalid, since there ARE a number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can give to

That D is calling H does not prove recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That D is calling H with its same parameters does seem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove non-halting recursive simulation.

Nope. Try to actuall PROVE it.

That is off-topic for this post.
All that we need know is that no D simulated by any H >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.

Nope. Make a claim, you need to prove it.

*In other different post not this one*

I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work >>>>>>>>>>> through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible >>>>>>>>>>> amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow. >>>>>>>>>>

But you can't PRECISELY define the category, or what you want >>>>>>>>>> to reason about, so your logic is worthless as it is baseless. >>>>>>>>>>

*POINT TO ANY ACTUAL MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY WITH THIS VERSION* >>>>>>>>>
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
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.

Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 01:
Line 02:
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates >>>>>>>>> D(D)

Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own >>>>>>>>> line 03.

For every H/D pair of the above template D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>> by pure function (thus computable function) H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>> reach its own final state at line 06 and halt.

Which thus doesn't correct simulate the call to H

*Counter-factual, try again*
We are not talking about any of your misconceptions the term:
"simulate" is expressly defined.

And how did your H "Correctly" simulate the call to H?

That does not matter as long as it is not impossible.

But since you claim you did it, you need to show what you did.

I cannot show the behavior of every element of an infinite set
a c function pairs.

So, didn't you say that needing infinite operations to evaluate made
something not a truth beared?

The problem is you don't seem to understand that somethings ARE
impossible.

It is certainly not impossible for pure function H to correctly
simulate D.

No, but it is impossible for a pure function H to correctly simulate
this D built on that H by the definition of Computation Theory AND
provide an answer.

At this point we are only looking at H as a simulator.
We can have this H return the meaningless 56.

Like building a Turing Machine that always correctly determines if
another Turing Machine/Input combination will halt.

Your claims that you make one that answers the proof case, is just
proven to be a lie, and your proof is based on first assuming it is
possible and then using that "fact" to try to prove your answer,
which is just the thing you claim you are not allowed to do.

In the last two years I have not even exaggerated.
Lets call a truce on accusations of lying you eventually
proved that you were not lying about this key point and I
updated my spec to address the issue that you raised.

Really, how many times did you say that I did not provide a counter
example?

You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

I made sure to not call you a liar on this. I said that until
proved otherwise I will assume that you are a liar and then
you proved otherwise.

But you continued to assert a statement that was untrue, even though
it was proved incorrect, you LATER changed your definition to try to
get around my answer,

You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

You still haven't refuted the first method.

Sure I have this H is ONLY simulator thus the first method
loses its basis.

Thus, it is proven that you whole concept is just built on
inconsistant lies.

This is the only post about this subject that I will respond
to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.

If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like
to see it. All of the experts that I could find seem to agree
that all pure functions in C would be computable functions
by a Turing machine.

So, you just don't understand that "Computable Function" is a
Term-of-the-art to talk about the mathematical mapping, an NOT the >>>>>> algorithm that shows the mapping is computable.

Pure functions <are> Turing computable functions until you
conclusively prove otherwise.

So, you still don't understand the meaning of the words.

Try and point out the specific error and I will correct any
mistake that you find. Until you provide a basis I will assume
that your claim is baseless.

"Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must be
per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM, which
means it does not stop.

It is essentially trivial to see that D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own final state at line 06 because
D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

A "Computable Function" isn't a program, but a mathematical concept of
a mapping from the input set to the output set for which there exists
an finite algoritm that computes it. (The program is that algorithm,
not the Function).

How do we tell if a C function is Turing Computable?

Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly
equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes copies
of the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the
requirements of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it requires
that ALL COPIES return the same answer for the same inputs.

These H/D pairs only simulate.

Also, it is possible for an algorithm to violate the definiton of a
"Pure Function" in certain limited manners, and still be a proper
algorithm, the key is that the definition of an algorithm is a
strictly Input to Output relationship, and doesn't talk about how the
answer is given.

I am saying that it must be a pure function.

Your claim is like saying that cats are 10 story office building.

One key point that make "Pure Functions" not necessarily
equivalent to a Turing Machine is the ability to get "hidden
inputs" from things like their own program address, something a
Turing Machine doesn't have.

*That is irrelevant to the current post*
*You can always look at the title and see if you went off topic*

No, you keep making the error, and thus destroy your arguement.

Since I am only responding to you via this single thread I
don't have to cut off the first divergence from the title.

*This boiler plate will be the only reply*
I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be
analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where
you are going, it is hard to find the path.

The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
will continue to assume this.

But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.

I stated it perfectly and the proof of this is that
you did not point to any gaps in my spec.

olcott seems to have problems with the meaning of the word 'proof'. If
nobody point to a gap, it is not a proof that no gaps exist.
Similarly for other cases: It is not a proof if nobody shows a
counter-example.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Tue, 21 May 2024 21:05:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/21/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 7:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 1:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/20/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/19/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

No, but it is impossible for a pure function H to correctly simulate
this D built on that H by the definition of Computation Theory AND
provide an answer.

At this point we are only looking at H as a simulator.
We can have this H return the meaningless 56.

It must return the same value as its input would, or else run indefinitely.

"Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must be
per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM, which
means it does not stop.

It is essentially trivial to see that D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own final state at line 06 because
D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

This is much more understandable now that you added a reason. However,
if one of those simulations aborts (because it detects infinite recursion),
all of them must (because they are the same), making the abortion wrong.
This is the whole argument.

Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly
equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes copies of
the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the requirements
of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it requires that ALL COPIES
return the same answer for the same inputs.

These H/D pairs only simulate.

No, they also recognise infinite recursion and abort, thus behaving
differently (namely, terminating).

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

Very constructive.

And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be
analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know where
you are going, it is hard to find the path.

The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
will continue to assume this.

If you think we are pretending, why bother?

But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.

I stated it perfectly and the proof of this is that
you did not point to any gaps in my spec.

You seem to favor baseless rhetoric because you know that baseless
rhetoric with ad hominem mixed in is very convincing for gullible fools. >>> Gullible fools are outside of my target audience.

Nope, your deception seems to be an attempt to go after gullible fools.

THE ONLY REASON THAT I WORK ON THIS IS TO MATHEMATICALLY
FORMALIZE THE NOTION OF TRUTH ITSELF SO THAT THE NAZI
LIARS CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR LIES.

As if they would care.

If you where honest, you could post you whole arguement and let it be
worked on.

WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS THREAD.

From your past, the reason you need to break the arguement into pieces
is you need to seperate to logic to allow a change of definition between
the sections.

IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE
ENDLESS DEFECTION

For instance, you definition here of correct simulation means your
results can not be used to show non-halting.

WE CAN GET TO THIS POINT AFTER WE FINISH THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE ENDLESS DEFECTION

How ironic. You would get further if you didn’t impose this roadblock.

My guess is in a later section, you will pull out the rule that if a
correct simulation doesn't reach a final state, the input is
non-halting, which is just a LIE because you have changed definition mid
proof.
This has been your history.

Quoted for posterity.

--
joes

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: sci.logic

On 5/21/24 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/21/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/21/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/21/2024 8:46 PM, Richard
Damon wrote:

You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

Because why do I need to provide a pointer to a message you read and
ignored.

YOU CONTINUE TO USE THE CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL
AS SOON AS YOU DO THIS I IGNORED EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU SAID.

Note, I kept on saying I would give it under a condition, one that I
am going to hold you to, that you admit that you have been wrong about
your claims that others haven't refuted you.

You used a loophole that was not really there yet I can
call this an honest mistake and not a lie.

ANYTIME form now one that you make that claim, I can point out that
you have been wrong about this in the past.

Message-ID with every claim that I have been wrong
on any point going forward.

I made sure to not call you a liar on this. I said that until
proved otherwise I will assume that you are a liar and then
you proved otherwise.

But you continued to assert a statement that was untrue, even though
it was proved incorrect, you LATER changed your definition to try to
get around my answer,

You persistently did refuse to provide the message_ID
this did make you look like a liar.

Because you refued to make the pledge not to use the false arguement
that you have not be refuted.

You used a loophole that was not really there yet I can
call this an honest mistake and not a lie.

The loophole was always there, bacause you kept on refering to the
semantics of the C programming language, but not the sematics of
Computation Theory, and thus the requirement of being a "Pure Function"
is not present unless stated.

You don't seem to understand the nature of "Requirements", and think
they are flexible. You need to clearly state them up front, and then
follow them.

And, when you talk about something that someone else has defined, you
don't get to change the definitions and requirements that they
established unless you CLEARLY point out that you are not talking about
what they were, but something prehaps related.

Like the Truth Primitive. It can't "Reject" an input, but is required to
give an ANSWER for every possible input. It is DEFINED what it should do
to "non-sense", not "Reject" but to say they are not true. That this
leads to the impossibility to create such a truth predicate, means
exactly that. If you want to create an alternate but "similar" thing in
the system, you can do so, but need to give it a different name. And
then show if it is useful for anything.

You still haven't refuted the first method.

Sure I have this H is ONLY simulator thus the first method
loses its basis.

Why is that? Isn't a valid simulation (one that your own H uses) is to
replace the call to H with an "equivalent" response. WHy else do you
list the simulation of the call H as the results of the simulation
that H does.

THAT FAILS TO MEET THIS SPEC THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE WRITTEN
EXCEPT FOR YOU CRITIQUE, THANKS

And thus, it WAS an correct response for the problem as written.

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.

Which isn't what you then claim your H's do. As your H's interpret a
call to H as to be the effect of showing the machine that H simulates.

ALL your proofs are based on such, now defined to be incorrect,
simulations, so you have no grounds to make your claims.

So, by your claim above, your H isn't allowed to presume by its logic
that a call to H will not return, as that isn't a "simulation" of the
input.

Only by moving the goal posts, do you try to argue.

Note, this is why I am asking for you to come up with a PRECISE
specification of what you are claiming to do.

*SURE AND THAT IS A GREAT IDEA THAT IS PROVING VERY HELPFUL THANKS*

So, do so.

What are the FULL specifications on what H does.

What are the FULL specifications of what it is trying to determine.

Thus, it is proven that you whole concept is just built on
inconsistant lies.

This is the only post about this subject that I will respond >>>>>>>>> to from you. I have to paint half of my house and empty my
garage within about a week.

If you can find some source that conclusively proves that
not all pure functions are computable functions I would like >>>>>>>>> to see it. All of the experts that I could find seem to agree >>>>>>>>> that all pure functions in C would be computable functions
by a Turing machine.

So, you just don't understand that "Computable Function" is a
Term-of-the-art to talk about the mathematical mapping, an NOT >>>>>>>> the algorithm that shows the mapping is computable.

Pure functions <are> Turing computable functions until you
conclusively prove otherwise.

So, you still don't understand the meaning of the words.

Try and point out the specific error and I will correct any
mistake that you find. Until you provide a basis I will assume
that your claim is baseless.

"Correct Simulation" to show something about non-termination, must
be per the methods of Computation Theory, which means like a UTM,
which means it does not stop.

It is essentially trivial to see that D correctly simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own final state at line 06 because
D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation.

Which, due to your now clarified definition of what you mean by
"correctly simulated" means absolutly NOTHING in regards to the
behavior of the input.

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

Try to prove it.

You have already proven that you concept of "trivial to see" is not
reliable.

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.

But then why is not the H that simulates just one step and then aborts,
and says that its input didn't reach a final state, and thus in
non-halting not also correct?

The problem is you try to use logic about something other than THIS D to
work your answer, which is like looking at 10 story office buildings to
answer about your cat.

Remember, Halting is a property of a PROGRAM, (not a template), and the
PROGRAM D includes the H that it calls, so versions of your template-D
that call other H's just are off topic for looking at THIS PROGRAM D.

This needs to be part of your specifications. What is your H ACTUALLY
looking at and what is it trying to decide.

A "Computable Function" isn't a program, but a mathematical concept
of a mapping from the input set to the output set for which there
exists an finite algoritm that computes it. (The program is that
algorithm, not the Function).

How do we tell if a C function is Turing Computable?

That Term doesn't apply to C funcitons at all, but to mathematical
mappings.

Do you mean the computational equivalent of a Turing Machine?

Not quite, almost. The computational equivalent of a Turing computable function. TM's can get stuck in loops.

Again, wrong term. Turing Machines are NOT "Computable Functions"

If you want to specify that it always halts, then that term is a
Decider. A Turing Machine that is a decider halts for all inputs, and it computes some Function, that it shows to be a Computable Function.

Note also, a "Pure Function" and this algorithm are NOT exactly
equivalent. Pure Function might take a hidden input that makes
copies of the function not equivalent, breaking them form being the
requirements of an algorithm, which is a bit stricter, as it
requires that ALL COPIES return the same answer for the same inputs.

These H/D pairs only simulate.

And thus your logic has divorsed itself from behavior of the machine
described by the input, since your simulation is not "Correct" by the
correct meaning.

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.

I think you mean MUST not MAY, or you allow the Flibble simulator.

Alternatives would be incorrectly emulating the x86 instructions
of D or emulating them in the wrong order, or both. Likewise for H.

And, you are still dropping your requirements on the structure of H. You
STILL are allowing H to be the non-pure program I proposed.

This just shows that it isn't really part of the requirements you are
thinking of, just something you are trying to tack on to get around my
example.

The problem is, once you make H to must be the computational equivalent
of a Turing machine, that means your logic you use must be compatible
with such a machine, which means that if H(D,D) called by main returns
0, then no logical result can say that when D(D) calls H(D,D) that it
will never return.

You perhaps can show that H can not possible see that return, but that
just shows the behavior is unknowable to H, not that it doesn't occur.

This is a fundamental problem with you logic, you seem to think the
unknowable doesn't actually happen.

Also, it is possible for an algorithm to violate the definiton of a
"Pure Function" in certain limited manners, and still be a proper
algorithm, the key is that the definition of an algorithm is a
strictly Input to Output relationship, and doesn't talk about how
the answer is given.

I am saying that it must be a pure function.

And you would be wrong. I can show functions the Computational
Equivalent of a Turing Machine that violate the requirement of not
using static memory.

Then my measure is more restrictive than necessary yet still
sufficiently restrictive.

No, because it also isn't restrictive enough, as for program-H to be the computational equivalent of the turing machine-h, then we need to be
able to make a copy of your H that still behaves EXACTLY the same.

Thus your H1 doesn't count, as it gives a different answer than H for
the same input.

The problem is your H takes a "hidden input" n the form of its program
address, which still qualifies as a "Pure Function" but makes it not the equivalent of a Turing Machine.

Your claim is like saying that cats are 10 story office building.

One key point that make "Pure Functions" not necessarily
equivalent to a Turing Machine is the ability to get "hidden
inputs" from things like their own program address, something a >>>>>>>> Turing Machine doesn't have.

*That is irrelevant to the current post*
*You can always look at the title and see if you went off topic*

No, you keep making the error, and thus destroy your arguement.

Since I am only responding to you via this single thread I
don't have to cut off the first divergence from the title.

*This boiler plate will be the only reply*
I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.

The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.

And if you can't actually define your category or the thing to be
analyzied you are just wasting your time, as if you don't know
where you are going, it is hard to find the path.

The way I see it I defined it correctly and completely and you
are simply pretending otherwise. Until you prove otherwise I
will continue to assume this.

But since you can't clearly state it, it means we can't help you.

I stated it perfectly and the proof of this is that
you did not point to any gaps in my spec.

Nope.

Failing to point to gaps right now is evidence that you
are not telling the truth. Just like the election deniers.

Nope.

You are being just like the election deniers.

There is evidence somewhere, OK then give me a link or I will
assume that you must be lying about election fraud evidence.

In other words, you are admitting that you make up what is actual true.

Note, I said nothing about evidence of election fraud, that is you just
reading words in to someones mouth.

You seem to favor baseless rhetoric because you know that baseless
rhetoric with ad hominem mixed in is very convincing for gullible
fools.
Gullible fools are outside of my target audience.

Nope, your deception seems to be an attempt to go after gullible fools. >>>>

THE ONLY REASON THAT I WORK ON THIS IS TO MATHEMATICALLY
FORMALIZE THE NOTION OF TRUTH ITSELF SO THAT THE NAZI
LIARS CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THEIR LIES.

But since your logic is based on LIES, like that H(D,D) is allowed to
say its input is non-halting when D(D) Halts, that seems unlikely.

That you fail to comprehend what I say is not even slight
evidence that I am incorrect. The one "mistake" that you
pointed out used a loophole that didn't really exist.

No, your logic is based on the changing meaning of words.

To you a truth predicate doesn't need to meet the definition of a Truth Predicate (which you don't seem to know).

You claim people means something with words that they do not mean,
because you are too stupid to understand what they actually are meanng,
so you make up something "dumb enough" for you to understand that you
can refute.

In other words, your logic is based on LIES

If you where honest, you could post you whole arguement and let it
be worked on.

WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT LINE OF THIS THREAD.

You said otherwise.

 From your past, the reason you need to break the arguement into
pieces is you need to seperate to logic to allow a change of
definition between the sections.

IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE
ENDLESS DEFECTION

So, why do you waste so much digging your heals on triva.

Just answer the questions and we can move on.

*IT IS THE KEY BASIS OF MY WHOLE PROOF THUS NOT TRIVIA*

And thus shows your whole proof to be meaningless.

Proofs can not need to be broken down into pieces, but are a continous
sequence of steps from the established truths of the system, proving new statements true, until reaching the final conclusion.

The only reason to try to break up a proof into pieces is because there
is a descrpency between the sections that needs to be hidden.

For instance, you definition here of correct simulation means your
results can not be used to show non-halting.

WE CAN GET TO THIS POINT AFTER WE FINISH THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME LEFT TO TOLERATE ENDLESS DEFECTION

Then you don't have time to just repeat the same request over and over.

*IT IS THE KEY BASIS OF MY WHOLE PROOF THUS NOT TRIVIA*
*IT IS THE KEY BASIS OF MY WHOLE PROOF THUS NOT TRIVIA*
*IT IS THE KEY BASIS OF MY WHOLE PROOF THUS NOT TRIVIA*

No, it can't be.

If it is, your whole proof is just wrong.

My guess is in a later section, you will pull out the rule that if a
correct simulation doesn't reach a final state, the input is
non-halting, which is just a LIE because you have changed definition
mid proof.

This has been your history.

It is trivial to see 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.

Unless H aborts its simulation, which it must do to answer. And, since
it does, that means the partial simulation it does, doesn't show that
the machine in non-halting.

IT IS TRIVIAL TO SEE THAT WHEN 1 TO 2^64 STEPS OF D ARE CORRECTLY
SIMULATED BY H THAT BECAUSE D REMAINS STUCK IN RECURSIVE SIMULATION

And if H is defined to simulate for 2^64 steps, then it can be shown
that for some biggger number, maybe 2^128 steps, if UTM(D,D) is run
(with D still calling that original H) that this will reach an end, and
thus D is NOT a non-halting input.

THE REST IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD
WE CAN GET TO OTHER POINTS AS SOON AS THIS POINT IS FINISHED

In other words, your scope is just to let you lie.

Since you have shown yourself incapable of actually forming a coherenet definition of the problem, you are just lying.

Again, because your definiton of H above didn't limit H to a pure
function, my non-pure H refutes it.

This is one reason you need to clarify you exact meaning. Since you
have implied that your goal is about halting, you are stuck with the
definitions from that, and to allow deviations, we need EXPLICIT
agreement that these results can not be then just used to show
non-halting, as that would be a lie.

Of course, if you admit that you aren't working on deciding halting,
then you have just wasted you 20 years, so showing that you can POOP
decider this one machine doesn't mean anything. The non-computability
of Halting still can be used for all of the proofs it is part of.

And, if you want to revamp the logic system with new definitions, you
are working at the wrong end, you need to go to the foundations, and
start there, and fully define the axioms you are going to be using.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)