Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.theory > #65046

Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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/

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.

The only reason that no one can do this is that in both of
these cases the correct reply from Jack and return value from H
are contradicted by his question and the input to H.



-- 
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.theory | 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