Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #29783

Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/20/23 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2023 10:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/20/23 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/23 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/19/2023 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/19/23 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/19/23 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the directly executed P(P) is different than the
>>>>>>>>> behavior of P(P) correctly simulated by H because in the first 
>>>>>>>>> case H
>>>>>>>>> has already aborted its simulation of its input and in the 
>>>>>>>>> second case
>>>>>>>>> this has not yet occurred.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By what definition of "Correctly Simulated"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that H aborts its simulation has NO affect on the 
>>>>>>>> direct execution of the machine, so all you are saying that H 
>>>>>>>> has shut its eyes and said "I don't see it, so it didn't happen".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is just FALSEHOOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I now refer to P(P) as D(D).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>> No it cannot see the details below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is not the question being asked. The fact that it is 
>>>>>>>> impossible to design an H that can correctly simulate its input 
>>>>>>>> to a halting state just proves that H can not correctly decider 
>>>>>>>> that its input is Halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This does NOT mean that the input can't be Halting, just that H 
>>>>>>>> can never prove it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IF H doesn't ever abort its simulation, then yes, the D built on 
>>>>>>>> that H is non-halting, but that H never gives that answer, so it 
>>>>>>>> is still wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Each H gets a DIFFERENT D, since they include the H that the 
>>>>>>>> "pathological test" is to be performed on, so the behavior of 
>>>>>>>> one D built on a different H doesn't apply, and for correct 
>>>>>>>> reasoning, you really need to give each one a different name. 
>>>>>>>> Reusing the same name for different machine, and then trying to 
>>>>>>>> confuse which one is which is just a sign of being intentionally 
>>>>>>>> deceptive to try to tell a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 
>>>>>>>>> emulator. This
>>>>>>>>> system enables one C function to execute another C function in 
>>>>>>>>> debug
>>>>>>>>> step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate process 
>>>>>>>>> context for
>>>>>>>>> D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H is able to
>>>>>>>>> simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to recursive
>>>>>>>>> simulations is RAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But D is not SPECIFIED in a seperate context, but share code 
>>>>>>>> space with H, which means it fails to be truely distinctly, like 
>>>>>>>> a Turing Machine would be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is NOT a full "separate process context" as all the contexts 
>>>>>>>> share code space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)   // uses x86 emulator to simulate its 
>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>> 03
>>>>>>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>> 05 {
>>>>>>>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> 10 }
>>>>>>>>> 11
>>>>>>>>> 12 void main()
>>>>>>>>> 13 {
>>>>>>>>> 14   D(D);
>>>>>>>>> 15 }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally 
>>>>>>>>> by reaching its own final state at line 09.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But D correctly simulated by a correct simulator would, at least 
>>>>>>>> as long as you are using an H that answer H(D,D) as 0, as you 
>>>>>>>> claim.
>>>>>>> H correctly simulates N steps of D until H correctly predicts 
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> the type of mathematical induction used by termination analyzers 
>>>>>>> that D
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that is the wrong prediction. It needs to predict if the input 
>>>>>> when run will halt, as THAT is the Halting Question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is just like Jack's question posed to Jack, self-contradictory.
>>>>> ChatGPT could understand that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, and you just seem too stupid to understand.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, you are just admitting to working on POOP instead of 
>>>>>> Halting, and ALL your statements are just LIES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int factorial(int n)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    if(n==0)
>>>>>>>      return(1);
>>>>>>>    return(n*factorial(n-1));
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> AProVE correctly determines that factorial(5) halts by
>>>>>>> boiling the key behavior of entire function to this:
>>>>>>> f(x) → f(x-1) :|: x > 0 && x <= 5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  > Wrong Question leads to incorrect answer, and all your work 
>>>>>> goes down
>>>>>> the drain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AProVE is the largest termination analysis project in the world.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and it probably uses the RIGHT question, will the program halt 
>>>> when actually run.
>>>>
>>>> It will probably also tell you that D(D) will Halt since H(D,D) 
>>>> returns 0.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, it likely shows you are wrong about everything.
>>>
>>> When we use the criteria:
>>> Can D correctly simulated by H ever terminate normally?
>>
>> So you are ADMITTING to working on a different problem, and lying 
>> about what you are doing. Thank you for being honest about that.
>>
>> Ben is just pointing out the ERRORS in your logic
>>
> 
> When Ben pointed out that H(P,P) reports that P(P) does not halt when
> P(P) does halt this seems to be a contradiction to people that lack a
> complete understanding.

NO, it is a TRUE statement. H is NOT a correct HALT DECIDER.

It might be a valid POOP decider with your altered criteria, but it 
isn't correct as a Halt Decider.

You don't get to change the meaning of words, attempting to just shows 
you are a liar.

Halting is a property of the original machine, not of the partial 
simulation that H does.
> 
> Because of this I changed the semantic meaning of a return value of 0
> from H to mean either that P(P) does not halt or P(P) specifically
> targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.

Which means you H need to return BOTH a 0 and 1 at the same time, since 
D(D) DOES Halt, and also matches you "do the opposite" clause. Since 
this is impossible, your criteria is invalid.

IT also means H is no longer a Halt Decider, since it fails to meet the 
API definition of one.

You don't get to change the definition of a Halt Decider, trying to do 
so just make yo a LIAR.

> 
> When H(P,P) reports that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
> reach its own last instruction this is an easily verified fact, thus
> P(P) does not halt from the point of view of H.

Which isn't the criteria of a Halt Decider, and thus Ben is CORRECT to 
say your H isn't a correct Halt Decider. It might be a correct POOP 
decider, using your new criteria, but that isn't halting, and you saying 
it is just makes you a LIAR.

> When H returns 0 for input P means either that P does not halt or
> P specifically targets H to do the opposite of whatever Boolean
> value that H returns not even people with little understanding can
> say that this is contradictory.

Which mean you admit that H isn't a Halt Decider, then LIE when you 
claim it is.

> 
>> The fact you can't see that just shows your lack of understanding.
> ChatGPT understood that Jack’s question is a self contradictory
> question when posed to Jack.

So? The Halting Question isn't the same question as we ask a Halt Decider:

Does the Machine represented by this input Halt when run?

That Question has a definite answer, as the machine needs to be fully 
defined to ask it, and thus H has definite behavior, which will just 
always be to give a wrong answer.

> 
> ChatGPT further understood that this makes Jack’s question posed
> to Jack an incorrect question.

So?

> 
> ChatGPT also understood that because D was intentionally defined
> to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returned,
> that D is a self-contradictory input for H.

Only because it doesn't understand that H is fixed by the time you ask it.

> 
> ChatGPT:
>     “Therefore, based on the understanding that self-contradictory
>     questions lack a correct answer and are deemed incorrect, one could
>     argue that the halting problem's pathological input D can be
>     categorized as an incorrect question when posed to the halting
>     decider H.”
> 
> https://chat.openai.com/c/2aae46ef-e7be-444d-a046-b76c1f971c5a
> It did not leap to this conclusion it took a lot of convincing.
> 
> ChatGPT is not biased towards rebuttal against the truth.
> My human reviewers are biased towards rebuttal against the truth.
> 

So, you seem to beleive in artificial intelligence as being correct, 
maybe that is because you don't have any real intelligence of your own.

ChatGPT is a known liar, and has a tendency to say whatever it thinks 
the person communicating with it wants to hear. Thus, it is not a good 
source for finding Truth.

People have gotten into serious problem because the just blindly 
believed what ChatGPT said to them. I guess we need to include you in 
its victims.

Back to comp.ai.philosophy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:43 -0500
  Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 20:45 -0400
    Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 20:02 -0500
      Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2023-06-19 21:13 -0400
        Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:46 -0500
          Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 07:19 -0400
            Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:02 -0500
              Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 12:46 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 14:20 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 13:33 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:32 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:38 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:46 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:27 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 17:56 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:19 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 18:52 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:59 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 20:41 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 20:36 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 22:32 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 21:59 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 07:38 -0400
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 12:32 -0500
                Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 19:01 -0400
        Re: Refutation of [nothing] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 12:48 +0100
          Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue ... olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:03 -0500
          Re: Refutation of [nothing] (Ben Bacarisse lies about this see below) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 13:00 -0500
            Re: Refutation of [nothing] (Peter Olcott lies about this see below) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 21:06 -0400

csiph-web