On 5/25/23 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 5:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 2:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 10:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/23/23 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/22/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 2:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 10:16 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 5:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 4:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 5:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 3:48 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:You seem to be acting like the HBO Westworld >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character Bernard that was
Yet any theory of computation computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist knows that a simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of N steps by a UTM does provide that actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actualSo?Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally and you did not need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinite amount of time to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine this then the isomorphic ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can also be determined to never terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally and this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination can be made in a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of time.No, you are showing yourself to be the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool by not understand your own stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 5/20/23 4:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 2:56 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 3:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:54 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:15 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 1:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 11:10 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 11:24 AM, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 10:19 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 10:54 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 8:49 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 12:00 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 10:27 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 11:00 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 9:51 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 10:10 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 8:56 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 9:47 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 5:54 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 10:50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong Question! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over you head. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It took me many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same dodge by Ben. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once you try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is over your head? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see, so like Ben >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software Engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you are lying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this applying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem described by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz, since that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Computability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely explanation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you are just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant of what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben kept masking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his coding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence this way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never written any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written more WORKING >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code than you have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your inability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer an straight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering question? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is NO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally you admit an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verified fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that is because H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, and can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do an accurarte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM would be wrong then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would have to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out the mistake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the simulation of D by H, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL UTM will reach a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this when you already know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually "Correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate" its input by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definintion aquired by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioning of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does simulate the first N >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. It is just as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern of N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if the value of N is ∞. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But N steps in not ALL steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as required by the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually N steps is the exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM for those N >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like with the H/D example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after N steps we can see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H nor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, UTMs have no concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only doing a partial simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It makes no error. As you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus its isomorphism of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by embedded_H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that affect the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ALL copies of it, since they all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> act the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*Yet only at the point where it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just like a racing car is a street >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal care with extra features >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that makes it no longer street legal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that H aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation part way means it is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer a UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you think you are immortal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you haven't died yet, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everyone is immortal until the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point in time they die? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since it just proves it isn't a UTM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can't assume that the copy it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating is, it needs to account >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that the DESIGN logic to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this goes into an infinite loop, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that the program itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does.
Since H aborts its simulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0, its input will see its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy do exactly the same thing and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus will Halt, making the answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since H isn't a UTM, since if fails >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to meet the defintion, the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it can't reach a final state is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevent, as is any definiton of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Correct Simulation" that differs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from what a UTM does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
UTM(D,D) Halts, therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (by a UTM which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what is allowed to replace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of the machine) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts, and thus the CORRECT answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is Halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallen for your own Strawman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deception that got you to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong criteria. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point where it aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation we can see that it must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this to prevent its own infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution, thus conclusively proving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it correctly determined that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How much longer are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play the fool and deny this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it does so because it has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmed to do so, and thus ALL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies of it will do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It makes the error assuming that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy it is simulating will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something different than it does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you going to keep playing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool on this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except that you are answering the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words you want to keep playing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fool and dodging the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question that I am actually asking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you agreed that D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally and the exact same thing goes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H.
No, I am saying that H can not correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate the input H and give an answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H DOES try to correctly simulate its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, then it can never giv an answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In both cases this can be correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined after N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation thus no need for the infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation that you keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting is necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep on LYING about what I said. Any H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that gives an answer can not "Correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate" this input per the definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow simulation to replace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally (hence [key >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement]) and the H/D pair is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to the embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pair you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
D(D) / Ĥ (Ĥ) still halt since H returns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting, thus that answer is wrong for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem.
It only seems wrong because all of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks reject simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt deciders out-of-hand without review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly assuming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation cannot possibly be used as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of a halt decider:
No, it is wrong because the question asks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the actual machine, and that halts, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer is HALTING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
input to this UTM.
Nope, only if the machine reaches a final state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that Nth Step.
You just don't understand what a UTM is or what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does.
Nope, a UTM simulation is only correct if it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the FULL b4ehavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine it is looking at. That is its DEFINITION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They also know that when the input to this UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is defined to have a
pathological relationship to this UTM that this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes the behavior of
this correctly simulated input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe I should begin my paper with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evident truth before
proceeding to the notion of a simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
Yes, do that, so anyone who actually understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory knows from that start that you are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crackpot.
In any case the perfect isomorphism between H/D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
already fully proves this point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why, since neither H or embedded_H are actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTMs, and it is establishied that both of them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare their input to be non-halting when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine they are given the description of Halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Clearly you are clueless about what the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism means*
Both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ have the exact same form in that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ attempt to
do the opposite of whatever their corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider determines.
Both of them loop when their halt decider returns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {halts} and both halt
when their halt decider returns {non-halting}. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both of them continue to
call the halt decider in recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until their halt decider
stops simulating them.
Right, so since the Halt Decider must have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined behavior when given them as an input, that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined behavior will always be wrong, because no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how you define your H, the machines will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> act the other way. This is what proves that there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't be a decider that gets all input right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did not say that precisely enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both of the simulated inputs [WOULD] loop if their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding halt
decider [WOULD] return {halts} to them and [WOULD] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt loop if their
corresponding halt decider [WOULD] return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {non-halting} to them yet the
actual case is that they remain stuck in recursive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation until
their corresponding halt decider stops simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
Thus as you admitted for the H/D pair also applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pair. The simulated input cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate
normally because it remains stuck in recursive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation until the
simulation is terminated *IN BOTH CASES* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a robot (AKA host) was almost perfectly a very smart >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human except that
his brain was hard-wired to not be able to "see" a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific door.
Then, once they're inside the dark house where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ford's robotic family
lives, Theresa asks what's behind one of the doors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "What door?" Bernard
asks, and that's when you know he's a host as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The door is plain as
day, even in the dark, and he's been there before. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And yet, he couldn't
see it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/11/14/one-of-the-biggest-westworld-fan-theories-just-came-true/?sh=5bcd83a38a3e
So, where do Main -> H(D,D) and main -> D(D) -> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) differ in their execution path?
You claim they differ, so show it.
If you really do know software engineering then you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already know on the
basis that you already agreed that D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot terminate
normally.
Yes, but the question isn't what does the (partial) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation by H show, but what does the machine
On 5/25/2023 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/23 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 5:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 2:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 10:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/23/23 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/22/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 2:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 10:16 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 5:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 4:24 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
You seem to be acting like the HBO Westworld >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> character Bernard that wasYet any theory of computation computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist knows that a simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of N steps by a UTM does provide that actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actualSo?Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally and you did not need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinite amount of time to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine this then the isomorphic ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can also be determined to never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally and this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination can be made in a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 5/20/23 5:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 3:48 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 4:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 2:56 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 3:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:54 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:15 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 1:09 PM, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 11:10 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 11:24 AM, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 10:19 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 10:54 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 8:49 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 12:00 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 10:27 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 11:00 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 9:51 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 10:10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 8:56 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 9:47 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5:54 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:50 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong Question! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over you head. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It took me many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same dodge by Ben. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once you try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is over your head? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see, so like Ben >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering unless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are lying about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this applying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by Linz, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computability Theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely explanation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just ignorant of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben kept masking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his coding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have never written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORKING code than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your inability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer an straight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering question? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is NO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally you admit an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verified fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that is because H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, and can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do an accurarte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM would be wrong then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would have to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out the mistake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the simulation of D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL UTM will reach a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this when you already know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually "Correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate" its input by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definintion aquired by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioning of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does simulate the first N >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. It is just as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern of N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if the value of N is ∞. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But N steps in not ALL steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as required by the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually N steps is the exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM for those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like with the H/D example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after N steps we can see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H nor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, UTMs have no concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only doing a partial simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It makes no error. As you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus its isomorphism of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by embedded_H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, but that affect the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ALL copies of it, since they all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> act the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just like a racing car is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> street legal care with extra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features that makes it no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> street legal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*Yet only at the point where it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that H aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation part way means it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer a UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you think you are immortal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you haven't died yet, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everyone is immortal until the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point in time they die? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since it just proves it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM, it can't assume that the copy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is simulating is, it needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account for that behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that the DESIGN logic to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this goes into an infinite loop, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that the program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since H aborts its simulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0, its input will see its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy do exactly the same thing and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus will Halt, making the answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since H isn't a UTM, since if fails >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to meet the defintion, the fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it can't reach a final state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is irrelevent, as is any definiton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of "Correct Simulation" that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differs from what a UTM does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
UTM(D,D) Halts, therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (by a UTM which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what is allowed to replace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of the machine) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts, and thus the CORRECT answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is Halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallen for your own Strawman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deception that got you to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong criteria. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point where it aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation we can see that it must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this to prevent its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite execution, thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it correctly determined that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How much longer are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play the fool and deny this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it does so because it has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmed to do so, and thus ALL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies of it will do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It makes the error assuming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the copy it is simulating will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something different than it does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you going to keep playing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool on this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except that you are answering the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words you want to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> playing the fool and dodging the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual question that I am actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking.
No, you are showing yourself to be the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool by not understand your own stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I am saying that H can not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulate the input H and give >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an answer. If H DOES try to correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate its input, then it can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giv an answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you agreed that D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally and the exact same thing goes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In both cases this can be correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined after N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation thus no need for the infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation that you keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting is necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep on LYING about what I said. Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H that gives an answer can not "Correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate" this input per the definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow simulation to replace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally (hence [key >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement]) and the H/D pair is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to the embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pair >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you contradict yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
D(D) / Ĥ (Ĥ) still halt since H returns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting, thus that answer is wrong for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem.
It only seems wrong because all of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks reject simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt deciders out-of-hand without review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly assuming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation cannot possibly be used as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of a halt decider: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is wrong because the question asks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the actual machine, and that halts, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer is HALTING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
input to this UTM.
Nope, only if the machine reaches a final state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that Nth Step.
You just don't understand what a UTM is or what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does.
Nope, a UTM simulation is only correct if it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the FULL b4ehavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine it is looking at. That is its DEFINITION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They also know that when the input to this UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is defined to have a
pathological relationship to this UTM that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this changes the behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this correctly simulated input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe I should begin my paper with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evident truth before
proceeding to the notion of a simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
Yes, do that, so anyone who actually understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory knows from that start that you are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crackpot.
In any case the perfect isomorphism between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H/D and embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already fully proves this point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why, since neither H or embedded_H are actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTMs, and it is establishied that both of them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> declare their input to be non-halting when the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine they are given the description of Halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Clearly you are clueless about what the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism means*
Both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ have the exact same form in that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the opposite of whatever their corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider determines.
Both of them loop when their halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns {halts} and both halt
when their halt decider returns {non-halting}. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both of them continue to
call the halt decider in recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until their halt decider
stops simulating them.
Right, so since the Halt Decider must have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined behavior when given them as an input, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that defined behavior will always be wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because no matter how you define your H, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines will act the other way. This is what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there can't be a decider that gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all input right.
I did not say that precisely enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both of the simulated inputs [WOULD] loop if their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding halt
decider [WOULD] return {halts} to them and [WOULD] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt loop if their
corresponding halt decider [WOULD] return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {non-halting} to them yet the
actual case is that they remain stuck in recursive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation until
their corresponding halt decider stops simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
Thus as you admitted for the H/D pair also applies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the
embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pair. The simulated input cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate
normally because it remains stuck in recursive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation until the
simulation is terminated *IN BOTH CASES* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a robot (AKA host) was almost perfectly a very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smart human except that
his brain was hard-wired to not be able to "see" a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific door.
Then, once they're inside the dark house where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ford's robotic family
On 5/25/23 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/25/2023 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/23 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 5:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 2:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 10:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/23/23 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 2:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 10:16 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 5:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 4:24 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Yet any theory of computation computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist knows that a simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of N steps by a UTM does provide that actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actualIt only seems wrong because all of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks reject simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt deciders out-of-hand without review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly assuming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation cannot possibly be used as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of a halt decider: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So?Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally and you did not need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an infinite amount of time to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine this then the isomorphic ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can also be determined to never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally and this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination can be made in a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 5/20/23 5:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 3:48 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 4:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 2:56 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 3:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:54 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 2:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:15 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 1:09 PM, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 11:10 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 11:24 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 10:19 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 10:54 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 8:49 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 12:00 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 10:27 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 11:00 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 9:51 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 10:10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 8:56 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 9:47 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5:54 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:50 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong Question! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over you head. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It took me many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same dodge by Ben. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once you try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really is over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your head? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see, so like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written any code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering unless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are lying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by Linz, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computability Theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely explanation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just ignorant of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben kept masking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his coding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never occurred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written any code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORKING code than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Your inability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to answer an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straight forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering question? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is NO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally you admit an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verified fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that is because H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, and can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do an accurarte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM would be wrong then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would have to be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of D by H, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL UTM will reach a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this when you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually "Correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulate" its input by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definintion aquired by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mentioning of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it does simulate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first N steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. It is just as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern of N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if the value of N is ∞. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But N steps in not ALL steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as required by the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually N steps is the exact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM for those >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> N steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like with the H/D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example after N steps we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, UTMs have no concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only doing a partial simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like a racing car is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> street legal care with extra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features that makes it no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> street legal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that H aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation part way means it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer a UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It makes no error. As you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus its isomorphism of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly*Yet only at the point where it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, but that affect the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of ALL copies of it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since they all act the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Do you think you are immortal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you haven't died yet, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everyone is immortal until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point in time they die? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since it just proves it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM, it can't assume that the copy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is simulating is, it needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account for that behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that the DESIGN logic to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this goes into an infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop, doesn't mean that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program itself does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since H aborts its simulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0, its input will see its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy do exactly the same thing and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus will Halt, making the answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since H isn't a UTM, since if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails to meet the defintion, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that it can't reach a final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state is irrelevent, as is any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definiton of "Correct Simulation" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that differs from what a UTM does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
UTM(D,D) Halts, therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (by a UTM which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what is allowed to replace the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of the machine) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts, and thus the CORRECT answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is Halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallen for your own Strawman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deception that got you to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong criteria. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At this point where it aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation we can see that it must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this to prevent its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite execution, thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it correctly determined that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How much longer are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play the fool and deny this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it does so because it has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programmed to do so, and thus ALL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies of it will do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It makes the error assuming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the copy it is simulating will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something different than it does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
simulated by embedded_H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you going to keep playing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool on this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except that you are answering the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words you want to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> playing the fool and dodging the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual question that I am actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking.
No, you are showing yourself to be the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool by not understand your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I am saying that H can not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulate the input H and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give an answer. If H DOES try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulate its input, then it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can never giv an answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you agreed that D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally and the exact same thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes for ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In both cases this can be correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined after N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation thus no need for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation that you keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting is necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep on LYING about what I said. Any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H that gives an answer can not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Correctly Simulate" this input per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions that allow simulation to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace the behavior of the actual machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally (hence [key >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement]) and the H/D pair is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to the embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pair >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you contradict yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
D(D) / Ĥ (Ĥ) still halt since H returns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting, thus that answer is wrong for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is wrong because the question asks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the actual machine, and that halts, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the right answer is HALTING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
input to this UTM.
Nope, only if the machine reaches a final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state in that Nth Step.
You just don't understand what a UTM is or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it does.
Nope, a UTM simulation is only correct if it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the FULL b4ehavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine it is looking at. That is its DEFINITION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They also know that when the input to this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM is defined to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship to this UTM that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this changes the behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this correctly simulated input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe I should begin my paper with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evident truth before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding to the notion of a simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
Yes, do that, so anyone who actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the theory knows from that start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are a crackpot.
In any case the perfect isomorphism between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H/D and embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already fully proves this point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why, since neither H or embedded_H are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually UTMs, and it is establishied that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both of them declare their input to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting when the machine they are given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the description of Halt.
*Clearly you are clueless about what the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism means*
Both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ have the exact same form in that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the opposite of whatever their corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider determines.
Both of them loop when their halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns {halts} and both halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their halt decider returns {non-halting}. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both of them continue to
call the halt decider in recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until their halt decider
stops simulating them.
Right, so since the Halt Decider must have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined behavior when given them as an input, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that defined behavior will always be wrong, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because no matter how you define your H, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines will act the other way. This is what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that there can't be a decider that gets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all input right.
I did not say that precisely enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both of the simulated inputs [WOULD] loop if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their corresponding halt
decider [WOULD] return {halts} to them and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [WOULD] halt loop if their
corresponding halt decider [WOULD] return >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {non-halting} to them yet the
actual case is that they remain stuck in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive simulation until
their corresponding halt decider stops simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
Thus as you admitted for the H/D pair also
On 5/25/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/23 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/25/2023 6:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/25/23 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 5:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 2:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 1:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2023 10:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/23 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/23/23 9:50 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/23/2023 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/22/2023 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2023 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/23 10:22 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 2:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 2:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2023 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/23 10:16 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 6:52 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Yet any theory of computation computer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientist knows that a simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of N steps by a UTM does provide that actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to this UTM.It only seems wrong because all of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> textbooks reject simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt deciders out-of-hand without review >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrectly assuming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation cannot possibly be used as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of a halt decider: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So?On 5/20/23 5:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 4:24 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 5:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 3:48 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 4:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 2:56 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 3:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:54 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 2:46 PM, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 1:15 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 1:09 PM, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 11:10 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 11:24 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 10:19 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 10:54 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2023 8:49 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/23 12:00 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 10:27 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 11:00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 9:51 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 10:10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:56 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 9:47 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2023 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5:54 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/23 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:50 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong Question! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is over you head. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It took me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many years to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same dodge by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG question >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once you try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really is over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your head? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see, so like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written any code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying about this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applying to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz, since that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the Halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorant of what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, so you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the diference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben kept masking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his coding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred to me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORKING code than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer an straight >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What software >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering question? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The answer to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is NO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Finally you admit an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verified fact. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but that is because H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't, and can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never do an accurarte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM would be wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you would have to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to point out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of D by H, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the simulation by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACTUAL UTM will reach a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know why you say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this when you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Correctly Simulate" its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input by the definintion >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aquired by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioning of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have already agreed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it does simulate the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first N steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. It is just as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obvious that the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pattern of N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if the value of N is ∞. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But N steps in not ALL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps as required by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual definition of a UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually N steps is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exact definition of a UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for those N steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like with the H/D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example after N steps we can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nor ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, UTMs have no concept of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only doing a partial simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like a racing car is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> street legal care with extra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> features that makes it no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer street legal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that H aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation part way means it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no longer a UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Yet only at the point where it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts its simulation* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H can never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally and you did not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need an infinite amount of time to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine this then the isomorphic ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can also be determined to never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally and this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determination can be made in a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, you are showing yourself to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fool by not understand your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Right, but that affect the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of ALL copies of it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since they all act the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It makes no error. As you already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus its isomorphism of ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly
Do you think you are immortal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you haven't died yet, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that everyone is immortal until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the point in time they die? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since it just proves it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM, it can't assume that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy it is simulating is, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to account for that behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that the DESIGN logic to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this goes into an infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop, doesn't mean that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program itself does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since H aborts its simulation and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0, its input will see its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy do exactly the same thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus will Halt, making the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since H isn't a UTM, since if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails to meet the defintion, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that it can't reach a final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state is irrelevent, as is any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definiton of "Correct Simulation" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that differs from what a UTM does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
UTM(D,D) Halts, therefore the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION (by a UTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what is allowed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace the actual behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine) Halts, and thus the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT answer is Halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have fallen for your own Strawman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deception that got you to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong criteria. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point where it aborts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation we can see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this to prevent its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite execution, thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it correctly determined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that its simulated input cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How much longer are you going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play the fool and deny this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it does so because it has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been programmed to do so, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus ALL copies of it will do so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It makes the error assuming that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the copy it is simulating will do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something different than it does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
simulated by embedded_H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are you going to keep playing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fool on this? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except that you are answering the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words you want to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> playing the fool and dodging the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual question that I am actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I am saying that H can not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulate the input H and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give an answer. If H DOES try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulate its input, then it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can never giv an answer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you agreed that D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated H cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally and the exact same thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes for ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In both cases this can be correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined after N steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation thus no need for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation that you keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting is necessary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You keep on LYING about what I said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any H that gives an answer can not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Correctly Simulate" this input per the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions that allow simulation to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace the behavior of the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine.
Since you already acknowledged that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally (hence [key >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement]) and the H/D pair is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to the embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ pair >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you contradict yourself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
D(D) / Ĥ (Ĥ) still halt since H returns >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting, thus that answer is wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is wrong because the question asks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the actual machine, and that halts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the right answer is HALTING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope, only if the machine reaches a final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state in that Nth Step.
You just don't understand what a UTM is or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it does.
Nope, a UTM simulation is only correct if it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly matches the FULL b4ehavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine it is looking at. That is its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION.
They also know that when the input to this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM is defined to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship to this UTM that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this changes the behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this correctly simulated input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe I should begin my paper with this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evident truth before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proceeding to the notion of a simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider.
Yes, do that, so anyone who actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the theory knows from that start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you are a crackpot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In any case the perfect isomorphism between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H/D and embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already fully proves this point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why, since neither H or embedded_H are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually UTMs, and it is establishied that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both of them declare their input to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting when the machine they are given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the description of Halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*Clearly you are clueless about what the term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphism means*
Both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ have the exact same form in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both D and ⟨Ĥ⟩ attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do the opposite of whatever their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding halt decider determines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Both of them loop when their halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns {halts} and both halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when their halt decider returns {non-halting}. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both of them continue to
call the halt decider in recursive simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until their halt decider
stops simulating them.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 59:50:15 |
| Calls: | 8,172 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,379 |