Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #167478

Re: Does everyone agree with this halt status decision? [ Richard cannot even compute 8th grade arithmetic ]

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 4 Sep 2022 08:41:52 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 9/4/2022 5:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 9/4/22 3:08 AM, Skep Dick wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 3 September 2022 at 19:24:40 UTC+2,
> >> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On 9/3/22 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 9/3/2022 12:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/3/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 12:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 10:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 9:06 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:03:48 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:50 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 1:43:43 PM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2022 7:00 AM, Paul N wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 3, 2022 at 2:54:54 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2022 7:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you won't go by the oficial definitions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your H just isn't a Halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the official definitions are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then at least one of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them must be rejected as incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are wrong here. The official
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a halt decider is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory, in that it is impossible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to build anything which meets the definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This has been proved.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way truth works mate. If the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official definitions are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory then I have also had new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insight on that another
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of computer science is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are not disputing that official
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a halt decider is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct and complete simulation of an input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is guaranteed to derive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever a simulating halt decider (SHD)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent the infinite execution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this input is merely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another way of saying the the correct and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by this SHD would never stop running.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When computer science textbooks say that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that a halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider must report on is the behavior of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine represented by this input and this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior is not the same as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete simulation of this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input then the computer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science textbooks are wrong because they reject
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of a UTM.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (simulator).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was hoping for more of a yes-or-no type answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I provide a complete explanation of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning behind the answer all those not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding these things cannot simply
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> baselessly disagree. All disagreement is thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required to have a basis. This way people are not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lead astray by a bunch of baseless disagreement,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they see that the disagreement has no basis and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you need to try to actually provide VALID
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning, starting from ACCEPTED definition.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just make wild claims based on your own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the words.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you don't even attempt to actually DEFINE the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words, no one can help you with your logic.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, Most of the things you are talking about HAVE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well defined meanings, so you either need to use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that meaning, or you really need to give your idea
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a new name (maybe basd on the common name with a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modifier).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, if you definition of "Halting" isn't the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the accepted definition, you can call it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO-Halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course the problem with this is it makes it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear that you are talking about the PO-Halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, with a PO-Halting Decider, so you counter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example doesn't affect the actual Halting Problem,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so it is clear you haven't proven what you claim to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not immediately obvious, but it can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved that the definition is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. You're not disputing that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't actually given a proof, since you are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly using altered definition that you aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> providing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You reject the notion of a UTM so you are starting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an incorrect basis.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing. UTM's exist, and UTM(P,d)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by DEFINITION gives the exact same result as P(d).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you get a glass of water and dump it on the floor
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you cannot truthfully deny that the floor is wet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And I haven't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the correct and complete simulation of the input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H(P,P) would have different behavior than the direct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of P(P) this cannot simply be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And the correct and complete simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) Halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H(P,P) of its input
> >>>>>>>>>>>> never stops running unless H aborts the simulation of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this input is merely another way of saying that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete simulation of this input by H never
> >>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You have bad logic there.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is a tautology:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>     Output("Input_Halts = ", H0((u32)Infinite_Loop));
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001102](01)  55         push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001103](02)  8bec       mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001105](02)  ebfe       jmp 00001105
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001107](01)  5d         pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [00001108](01)  c3         ret
> >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001108]
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The fact that the simulation by H0(Infinite_Loop) of its
> >>>>>>>>>> input would never stop running unless H0 aborts the
> >>>>>>>>>> simulation of this input is merely another way of saying
> >>>>>>>>>> that the correct and complete simulation of this input by
> >>>>>>>>>> H0 never halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Strawman.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Fallacy of Proof by Example.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is only a fallacy by proof of example when a single
> >>>>>>>> example is not representative of the entire class of all
> >>>>>>>> such examples.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which it isn't, so FAIL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You are confusing existential quantification with universal
> >>>>>>>> quantification.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No you are, since you are claiming the rule works for ALL
> >>>>>>> inputs (or at least P, which isn't the input you showed it
> >>>>>>> worked for).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ∀ simulating halt decider H
> >>>>>>>> ∀ machine description P
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Right. ∀, so UNIVERSAL, not EXISTENTIAL, so FAIL.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You don't seem to know what those words mean.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The fact that the correct simulation of any input P to any
> >>>>>>>> simulating halt decider (SHD) H would never stop running
> >>>>>>>> unless this simulation was aborted by this SHD is merely
> >>>>>>>> another way of saying that the correct and complete
> >>>>>>>> simulation of this input by this SHD would never stop
> >>>>>>>> running.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope, not when the input depends on the behavior of the
> >>>>>>> decider in the way you are doing it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> P was intentionally defined to depend on the behavior of its
> >>>>>> decider *NITWIT*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right, but your "example" didn't, and this dependency is the
> >>>>> case that breaks your "proof" and definitions.
> >>>> The correct simulation of the input by H(P,P) is the simulation
> >>>> of this input at the same point in the execution trace where H
> >>>> is invoked.
> >>>>
> >>>> (2 + 3) * 5   !=   2 + (3 * 5) // order matters.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Red Herring. Simulate(P,P) is ALWAYS the same (for a given P)
> >>> irrespective of "where" that simulation is done, at least if H is
> >>> a computation, and if it isn't it can't be a decider.
> >>>
> >>> The CORRECT equivalent to the above would be:
> >>>
> >>> Add(2, 3) * 5 == 5 * Add(2, 3)
> >> You shit for brains fucking idiot! That is not true.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_ring
> >>
> > 
> > Except both are 5 * 5 so the commutative property isn't needed.
> > 
> > You are just being a DICK.
> 
> (2 + 3) * 5  == 25 // 2+3== 5 then 5* 5==25
>   2 + (3 * 5) == 17 // 3*5==15 then 2+15==17
> 
> If you can't even correctly compute 8th grade arithmetic how can you 
> possibly have sufficient knowledge of more complex computations?

Except Richard didn't imply that, Richard implied that multiplication
is commutative for real numbers, which it is, so this is just an
obvious strawman you lying cunt.

/Flibble

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Does everyone agree with this halt status decision? [ Richard cannot even compute 8th grade arithmetic ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-09-04 08:41 -0500
  Re: Does everyone agree with this halt status decision? [ Richard cannot even compute 8th grade arithmetic ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-09-04 16:07 +0100

csiph-web