Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #29797

Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/20/23 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2023 3:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/20/23 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2023 3:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/23 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2023 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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, 
>>>>> Not at all. Not the least little bit.
>>>>> A return value of 0 also indicates that input D intentionally targets
>>>>> H by doing the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
>>>>
>>>> But a return of 1 signals that it halts, which it does.
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand English.
>>>>
>>>> The Halting Problem asks if the Machine Described by the input Halts.
>>>>
>>>> It Does (for the H that you are cliaming to be correct)
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, the correct answer is YES / Halting, and you are PROVED 
>>>> to be a LIAR.
>>> If I am the one that is a Liar then why did you already say that 1 is
>>> the wrong answer and are now saying that it is the right answer?
>>>
>>
>> Where did I say that 1 is the wrong answer to THAT question.
>>
> What happens when H returns 1 to D?
> 

But it doesn't, so it doesn't matter.

To be CORRECT H would need to do that, but it doesn't, and if you change 
H you change its input so it is no longer correct.

You just don't seem to understand that fact. In Reality, H is a single 
defined program, and that program generates a single defined D, and 
whatever this realities H gives as an answer, it will be wrong.

You can't then change H to be right, as then H isn't H anymore.

You are just showing that you are totally out of touch with what 
actually is reality, because you seem to have gone insane at some point.

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