When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
Unless the SHD bases its halt status decision on the actual behavior of
its actual input rather than the hypothetical behavior of what its input would be if there was no pathological relationship the SHD itself would
never terminate.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
Unless the SHD bases its halt status decision on the actual behavior of
its actual input rather than the hypothetical behavior of what its input would be if there was no pathological relationship the SHD itself would
never terminate.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much more important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and reject this input as non-halting.
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior of the
actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid.
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the mapping >>>>> from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" input >>>>> becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt >>>>> decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and >>> reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior of the
actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows the
actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid.
When a simulating halt decider correctly simulates N steps of its input
it derives the exact same N steps that a pure UTM would derive because
it is itself a UTM with extra features.
My reviewers cannot show that any of the extra features added to the UTM change the behavior of the simulated input for the first N steps of simulation:
(a) Watching the behavior doesn't change it.
(b) Matching non-halting behavior patterns doesn't change it
(c) Even aborting the simulation after N steps doesn't change the first
N steps.
Because of all this we can know that the first N steps of input D
simulated by simulating halt decider H are the actual behavior that D presents to H for these same N steps.
computation that halts… “the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state” (Linz:1990:234)
When we see (after N steps) that D correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly reach its simulated final state in any finite number of steps
of correct simulation then we have conclusive proof that D presents non- halting behavior to H.
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the mapping >>>>>> from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the >>>>>> actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" input >>>>>> becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt >>>>>> decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation
and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior of
the actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows the
actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid.
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking the concept of a
UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that EXACTLY reproduces the
results of the actual machine.
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the
mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the >>>>>>> actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible"
input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating halt >>>>>>> decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much more >>>>> important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior of
the actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows the
actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid.
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a Correct
Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking the concept of
a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that EXACTLY reproduces the
results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been
simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this.
Both embedded_H and H
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the
mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the >>>>>>>> actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" >>>>>>>> input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating >>>>>>>> halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much more >>>>>> important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior of
the actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows the
actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid.
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a Correct
Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking the concept of
a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that EXACTLY reproduces
the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been
simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this.
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an input
built by this template to the end.
That is a DIFFERENT question than what is the behavior of this input, or
its correct simulation.
The latter is clearly Halt, since we are given that H(D,D) will return 0
and thus D(D) will halt.
All you have shown is that you can't build an H that actually does a
"Correct Simulation" per the definition needed by the rules of a UTM, it
can only approach that in correctly simulating the first N steps, but
that sort of simulation doesn show non-halting.
You are just arguing about Straw man because you seem to have straw for
a brain.
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the >>>>>>>>> mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on the >>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise "impossible" >>>>>>>>> input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its simulating >>>>>>>>> halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much more >>>>>>> important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior of >>>>>> the actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows the
actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid.
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a Correct
Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking the concept
of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that EXACTLY
reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been
simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this.
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an
input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and reject this input as non-halting.
You and I and simulating halt deciders can see that their input will
never stop running unless aborted after N steps of correct simulation.
That is a DIFFERENT question than what is the behavior of this input,
or its correct simulation.
The latter is clearly Halt, since we are given that H(D,D) will return
0 and thus D(D) will halt.
All you have shown is that you can't build an H that actually does a
"Correct Simulation" per the definition needed by the rules of a UTM,
it can only approach that in correctly simulating the first N steps,
but that sort of simulation doesn show non-halting.
You are just arguing about Straw man because you seem to have straw
for a brain.
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N steps of
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the >>>>>>>>>> mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based on >>>>>>>>>> the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise
"impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its
simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much >>>>>>>> more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>> until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior
of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows the >>>>>>> actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid.
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a Correct
Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking the concept
of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that EXACTLY
reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs* >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would never >>>> end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been
simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this.
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an
input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
On 5/12/2023 10:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N steps of
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute the >>>>>>>>>>> mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based >>>>>>>>>>> on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise
"impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its
simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is much >>>>>>>>> more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY* >>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>>> until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior >>>>>>>> of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows
the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid. >>>>>>> *You have already admitted otherwise*
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a
Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking the >>>>>> concept of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that EXACTLY >>>>>> reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs* >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would never >>>>> end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been
simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this.
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an
input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation and >>> reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
its input and these first N steps form a mathematical induction proof
that the input never reaches its own final state.
That you refuse to acknowledge the verified fact of this does not negate
that it is a verified fact.
On 5/12/23 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:You are flatly incorrect, in this case it is exactly the same because
On 5/12/2023 10:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N steps of
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute >>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based >>>>>>>>>>>> on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise
"impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its
simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input.
WHY?
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is >>>>>>>>>> much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY* >>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>>>> until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>>>>>> running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the behavior >>>>>>>>> of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition.
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows >>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid. >>>>>>>> *You have already admitted otherwise*
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a
Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking
the concept of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that
EXACTLY reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem
Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would
never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been >>>>>> simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this.
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an
input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its simulation
and
reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
its input and these first N steps form a mathematical induction proof
that the input never reaches its own final state.
That you refuse to acknowledge the verified fact of this does not negate
that it is a verified fact.
Right, but correctly simulating the first N steps of the input is NOT
the same a correctly simulating the input to the point that determines
its behavior.
On 5/12/2023 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:You are flatly incorrect, in this case it is exactly the same because
On 5/12/2023 10:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N steps of >>> its input and these first N steps form a mathematical induction proof
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute >>>>>>>>>>>>> the mappingWHY?
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state based >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise
"impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is >>>>>>>>>>> much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY* >>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input >>>>>>>>>>> D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>>>>>>> running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its >>>>>>>>>>> simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the
behavior of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition. >>>>>>>>>>
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows >>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid. >>>>>>>>> *You have already admitted otherwise*
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a
Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking >>>>>>>> the concept of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that >>>>>>>> EXACTLY reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem
Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would >>>>>>> never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been >>>>>>> simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this. >>>>>>>
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an
input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
that the input never reaches its own final state.
That you refuse to acknowledge the verified fact of this does not negate >>> that it is a verified fact.
Right, but correctly simulating the first N steps of the input is NOT
the same a correctly simulating the input to the point that determines
its behavior.
the simulating halt decider only stops at N steps when it correctly
predicts (through a form of mathematical induction) what the future
behavior would be if it did not abort its simulation.
The only issue is that you believe that the behavior is what a textbook
says it should be rather than what the actual behavior actually is.
On 5/12/23 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:So you acknowledge that I was right about Tarski on the basis that my
On 5/12/2023 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:You are flatly incorrect, in this case it is exactly the same because
On 5/12/2023 10:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mappingWHY?
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state >>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is >>>>>>>>>>>> much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY* >>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input >>>>>>>>>>>> D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>>>>>>>> running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the
behavior of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition. >>>>>>>>>>>
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows >>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid. >>>>>>>>>> *You have already admitted otherwise*
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a
Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking >>>>>>>>> the concept of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that >>>>>>>>> EXACTLY reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem >>>>>>>> Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would >>>>>>>> never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been >>>>>>>> simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this. >>>>>>>>
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an >>>>>>> input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
steps of
its input and these first N steps form a mathematical induction proof
that the input never reaches its own final state.
That you refuse to acknowledge the verified fact of this does not
negate
that it is a verified fact.
Right, but correctly simulating the first N steps of the input is NOT
the same a correctly simulating the input to the point that
determines its behavior.
the simulating halt decider only stops at N steps when it correctly
predicts (through a form of mathematical induction) what the future
behavior would be if it did not abort its simulation.
How can it be correct at deciding, when the actual correct simulation
comes to a Halt.
On 5/12/2023 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:So you acknowledge that I was right about Tarski on the basis that my argument has become irrefutable.
On 5/12/2023 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:You are flatly incorrect, in this case it is exactly the same because
On 5/12/2023 10:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mappingWHY?
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is >>>>>>>>>>>>> much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY* >>>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>>>>>>>>> running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually >>>>>>>>>>>> shows the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria >>>>>>>>>>>> is invalid.
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a >>>>>>>>>> Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking >>>>>>>>>> the concept of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that >>>>>>>>>> EXACTLY reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>> Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation
would never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have >>>>>>>>> been
simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this. >>>>>>>>>
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate >>>>>>>> an input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
steps of
its input and these first N steps form a mathematical induction proof >>>>> that the input never reaches its own final state.
That you refuse to acknowledge the verified fact of this does not
negate
that it is a verified fact.
Right, but correctly simulating the first N steps of the input is
NOT the same a correctly simulating the input to the point that
determines its behavior.
the simulating halt decider only stops at N steps when it correctly
predicts (through a form of mathematical induction) what the future
behavior would be if it did not abort its simulation.
How can it be correct at deciding, when the actual correct simulation
comes to a Halt.
On 5/12/23 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2023 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:You are flatly incorrect, in this case it is exactly the same because
On 5/12/2023 10:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must compute >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mappingWHY?
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state >>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is >>>>>>>>>>>> much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY* >>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input >>>>>>>>>>>> D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>>>>>>>> running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the
behavior of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition. >>>>>>>>>>>
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually shows >>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria is invalid. >>>>>>>>>> *You have already admitted otherwise*
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a
Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by invoking >>>>>>>>> the concept of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE simulation that >>>>>>>>> EXACTLY reproduces the results of the actual machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem >>>>>>>> Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation would >>>>>>>> never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have been >>>>>>>> simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this. >>>>>>>>
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate an >>>>>>> input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
steps of
its input and these first N steps form a mathematical induction proof
that the input never reaches its own final state.
That you refuse to acknowledge the verified fact of this does not
negate
that it is a verified fact.
Right, but correctly simulating the first N steps of the input is NOT
the same a correctly simulating the input to the point that
determines its behavior.
the simulating halt decider only stops at N steps when it correctly
predicts (through a form of mathematical induction) what the future
behavior would be if it did not abort its simulation.
How can it be correct at deciding, when the actual correct simulation
comes to a Halt.
On 5/12/23 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2023 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 5:50 PM, olcott wrote:So you acknowledge that I was right about Tarski on the basis that my
On 5/12/2023 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 11:08 AM, olcott wrote:You are flatly incorrect, in this case it is exactly the same because
On 5/12/2023 10:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:You already admitted that H does correctly simulate the first N
On 5/12/2023 9:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/12/23 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/11/23 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2023 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:*You have already admitted otherwise*
On 5/10/2023 6:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/10/23 12:02 PM, olcott wrote:
When it is understood that all halt deciders must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compute the mappingWHY?
from their inputs to their own accept or reject state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on the
actual behavior of this actual input the otherwise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible" input
becomes decidable.
When an input has a pathological relationship to its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt
decider (SHD) this changes the behavior of this input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The easily verified fact that the behavior is different is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much more
important than why it is different.
*I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS TAUTOLOGY* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>> running
unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
Because your statement is a contradiction.
The "Behavior of the input", by the definition, is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual machine, not some partial simulaition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your H NEVER DOES a "Correct Simulaition" that actually >>>>>>>>>>>>> shows the actual behavior of the machine, so your criteria >>>>>>>>>>>>> is invalid.
Nope, just proves again that you are a liar.
H does a correct PARTIAL simulation which is NOT actually a >>>>>>>>>>> Correct Simulation by the definition you allude to by
invoking the concept of a UTM, which is only a COMPLETE
simulation that EXACTLY reproduces the results of the actual >>>>>>>>>>> machine.
*Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>> Proofs*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_partial_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Problem_Proofs
You and I and embedded_H and H can see that the simulation >>>>>>>>>> would never
end unless aborted after the N steps that you have agreed have >>>>>>>>>> been
simulated correctly. N steps are enough to correctly infer this. >>>>>>>>>>
Both embedded_H and H
No, we see that there is no H that can be designed to simulate >>>>>>>>> an input built by this template to the end.
*YOU ARE BACK TO DENYING THE SAME TAUTOLOGY*
When simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>> until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>>> unless aborted then H is necessarily correct to abort its
simulation and
reject this input as non-halting.
But since H DOESN'T do a "Correct Simulation"
steps of
its input and these first N steps form a mathematical induction proof >>>>>> that the input never reaches its own final state.
That you refuse to acknowledge the verified fact of this does not
negate
that it is a verified fact.
Right, but correctly simulating the first N steps of the input is
NOT the same a correctly simulating the input to the point that
determines its behavior.
the simulating halt decider only stops at N steps when it correctly
predicts (through a form of mathematical induction) what the future
behavior would be if it did not abort its simulation.
How can it be correct at deciding, when the actual correct simulation
comes to a Halt.
argument has become irrefutable.
Nope, all your arguement fail because you don't actually understand what
you are talking about.
The Halting Problem proof has nothing to do with Tarski. He may use some similar methods, but the Halting Problem has no dependency on it.
Nope, all your arguement fail because you don't actually understand
what you are talking about.
The Halting Problem proof has nothing to do with Tarski. He may use
some similar methods, but the Halting Problem has no dependency on it.
In other words you are 100% totally clueless about the pathological self-reference error that is shared by the
(a) Halting Problem proofs,
(b) Liar Paradox,
(c) Tarski Undefinability theorem
(d) Isomorphism to 1931 Incompleteness Theorem's G
Only in the first case is an algorithm smart enough to circumvent this.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 17:01:36 |
Calls: | 7,812 |
Files: | 12,927 |
Messages: | 5,766,217 |