On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infiniteOn 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,All things being equal which is more likely: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
actual
validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
when that is
the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
of steps
(0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
ever reach
the last instruction of this input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
number of steps.
None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
can
determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
simulate an
infinite number of steps.
So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
infinite loop.
_Infinite_Loop()
[000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
[000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
[000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
[000012c8](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
which is one of the P's you talk about must be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keepI am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
and another immutable machine language literal string named P. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman"
input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the
definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function,Since you always knew this: that you are a liar whenIt is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
be brown.
Ha(Pa,Pa)
Hb(Pa,Pa)
They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to >>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because >>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.How dishonest can you get?P does not call anything besides HSimulate(Pa,Pa)I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level >>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar. >>>>>>>>>>>
And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
Because they have entirely different execution traces
They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
you claimed that they are equivalent.
I don't think that we are getting anywhere.I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing >>>> to back that up.
Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical >>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because
Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not deciding
the same thing is baseless.
A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree.
So no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.
On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what iswrong with the below statement. >>
Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
no basis to claim otherwise.
It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
be brown.
Ha(Pa,Pa)
Hb(Pa,Pa)
Simulate(Pa,Pa)
are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:57:12 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
On 5/24/2022 9:47 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2022 8:57 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:47:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infiniteOn 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,All things being equal which is more likely: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
?
/Flibble
Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
actual
validation.
Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
when that is
the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
of steps
(0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
ever reach
the last instruction of this input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
number of steps.
None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
can
determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
simulate an
infinite number of steps.
So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
infinite loop.
_Infinite_Loop()
[000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
[000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
[000012c8](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
which is one of the P's you talk about must be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keepand another immutable machine language literal string named P.
on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
distinct names is a reasonable thing to do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman"
the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as
_P()In other words you are ignoring my explanation and making up the JackassSo no explanation why this is wrong, just a baseless claim.definition of the problem any H is required to map the halting function, >>>> which means the correct answer for Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) is 1 because >>>> Pa(Pa) halts. Any claim that Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not decidingSince you always knew this: that you are a liar whenIt is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
be brown.
Ha(Pa,Pa)
Hb(Pa,Pa)
They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to >>>>>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because >>>>>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.How dishonest can you get?P does not call anything besides HSimulate(Pa,Pa)I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
Because they have entirely different execution traces
They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that
you claimed that they are equivalent.
I don't think that we are getting anywhere.I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing >>>>>> to back that up.
Translation: You can't explain why I'm wrong and you're backed into a corner.
All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily >>>>>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical >>>>>> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
It is an easily verified fact that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is NOT correct > as Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 demonstrates that Ha aborted too soon. By the
the same thing is baseless.
A software engineer with sufficient technical competence would disagree. >>>
lie that I never explained it.
And you seem to forget that I shot that down (see below)
On 5/23/2022 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:>> So explain exactly what iswrong with the below statement. >>
Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is >>>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have >>>> no basis to claim otherwise.
It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
be brown.
Ha(Pa,Pa)
Hb(Pa,Pa)
Simulate(Pa,Pa)
are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
As I stated previously which you dishonestly clipped:
I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 103:39:47 |
Calls: | 6,660 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,335,074 |