Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.ai.philosophy > #29808

Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/21/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/20/23 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/20/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/20/23 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2023 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/23 6:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 5:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/23 6:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2023 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> No H can possibly be defined that can be embedded within
>>>>>>>> Linz Ĥ such that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qy or Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>> consistently with the behavior of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, which is why it is impossible to make a correct Halt Decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason for this is that Ĥ does the opposite of both
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qy and Ĥ.qn. This makes the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>> self-contradictory for embedded_H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not SELF contradicotory, but just contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK that may make sense. One of our very rare agreements. The
>>>>>> question does not contradict itself it contradicts every answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Contradictory questions are also incorrect questions.
>>>>>> Likewise Jack's question contradicts every answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't contradict the answer to the actual question, 
>>>> If this is true then you can say which of yes/no are correct for 
>>>> Jack to
>>>> reply and which of true/false that H can return.
>>>>
>>>
>>> SO, you are just to dumb to understand 
>>
>> That simply dodges my yes/no question.
>>
>> My IQ is probably higher than yours. Did you pass the Mensa test?
>> In any case creative genius has its algorithm:
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius1/
> 
> I never took the Mensa test, as I saw no benefit to taking it.
> 
>>
>> If this is true then you can say which of yes/no are correct for
>> Jack to reply and which of true/false that H can return.
>>
> 
> How do you get that conclusion? You are working off BAD LOGIC.
> 
In other words you are saying that when a question contradicts every
answer From X that the reason that X cannot correctly answer the
question has nothing to do with the fact that the question contradicts
every answer from X instead it must be the case that X is very stupid.

-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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