XPost: comp.theory, sci.math.symbolic, comp.software-eng

On 8/6/2021 8:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/6/21 6:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2021 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/21 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2021 10:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/21 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:

I don't refuse to respond to rebuttals. I refuse to respond to you. >>>>>>
I also refuse to respond to dishonest dodges, changing the subject to >>>>>> avoid addressing the point at hand.

As soon as I prove my point people change the subject.
It is counter-productive for me to tolerate this.

void P(u32 x)
{
    if (H(x, x))
      HERE: goto HERE;
}

It took fifty exchanges for you to pay enough attention to acknowledge >>>>>> that int main(){ P(P); } never halts when we assume that H is only a >>>>>> pure simulator.

No, you refuse to responde to rebuttals from me because I present
rebuttals so clear that you can't come up with an answer to them.

All of your "rebuttals" are entirely anchored in your inability to pay >>>> attention.

FALSE.

You lack of responses shows you don't understand any of the theory you
are talking about.

What you call a 'dishonest dodge' is me pointing out that the Nth time >>>>> you start an arguement, and are trying to misuse a terminology, that I >>>>

It does not freaking matter that I misuse terminology that is a freaking >>>> dishonest dodge. What matters is that my halt decider is correct.

Only if you are misusing the word 'correct', or is it Halting.

Misuse of terminology is Fundamentally wrong.

I don't misuse those words. If I misuse terminology that it material to
my proof then there is a problem.

Yes, words like Turing Machine, or Halting, or Correct, or Equivalent,
or even Proof.

You don't seem to really know what these are.

(1) Turing Machine, I use this term correctly no errors can be pointed out.

(2) Halting, I may have adapted the original definition, or not.
According to André the final state of a computation must be reached for
a computation to be considered as having halted.

(3) Equivalent, I have adapted the original definition to apply to
subsets of computations.

(4) Correct means that the condition of a conditional expression is
satisfied.

(5) Proof, here is what I mean by proof, it is an adaptation of the
sound deductive inference model such that valid inference must only
include true preserving operations.

By proof I mean the application of truth preserving inference steps to
premises that are known to be true. Since mathematical logic has some
inference steps that are not truth preserving these are ruled out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication

Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all
of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is
unsound. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

// original definition of valid (same as P → C)

Material conditional
p q p → q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

Transforming the above to become truth preserving:

The definition of valid is changed to:
p q p [PROVES] q
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form
that the conclusion is only true if and only if the premises are true.

All of the above is summed up as
P [PROVES] C if and only if (True(P) ⊢ True(C) ∧ False(P) ⊢ False(C))

modal operators are most often interpreted
"□" for "Necessarily" and "◇" for "Possibly". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
(P [PROVES] C) ↔ (P ↔ □C)

H(P,P)==0 is proven to be true on the basis that truth preserving
operations are applied to premises that are verified as true: (P ↔ □C)

If my misuse of terminology is immaterial to my proof then this is an
side-issue that is irrelevant to my proof.

When people use irrelevant side-issues to avoid addressing the key point
at hand this is a dishonest dodge.

Oh, and that is another word you misuse, 'dishonest'. It is NOT
dishonest to point out an error in an arguement, even if it isn't the
point you are trying to focus on as long as it does relate to the
problem at hand.

If an error is pointed out in the actual argument then this if valid.
If an error is pointed that does not directly pertain to the argument
then this is a dishonest dodge away from the point at hand.

YOU use dishonest dodges to avoid having to try to deal with the
multitude of errors in your logic.

Glad you admit that.

It shows you utter lack of knowledge in the field.

It does not show an utter lack of knowledge in the field.

Whht, like the fact that you totally don't understand what a Turing
Machine or a Computation is? Or Haltimg, or even what a Proof is.

Not sure you really understand what is Truth.

It shows a lack of complete knowledge in the field that can effect my
credibility. This lack has no effect on the validity of my proof that
H(P,P)==0 is correct.

Only that just about every statement in you 'proof' is invalid or unsound.

You don't seem to know enough to know how badly you are wrong.

point out where you are going to in two steps change the meaning of a >>>>> word and still assume the arguement based on a different meaning still >>>>> holds.

THIS IS THE ONLY FREAKING DETAIL THAT COUNTS.
H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status of the input to H.
Everything that bypasses this point is a dishonest dodge.

Ok, IF Halting is defined to be non-halting, then H(P,P) being
non-halting could be a correct answer in your world of inconsistent
logic.

Halting is defined as reaching the final state of the C function.

Right, and when you run P(P) is does that.

The Halting problem does not pertain to the behavior of P, it only
pertains the behavior of the input to P.

the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).

Not halting is defined as never reaching the final state of the function
while H is in pure simulator mode. Not halting must be defined in terms
of never reaching the final state of the function to distinguish it from
functions that had their simulation aborted.

WRONG. Not Halting is defined as never being able to reach the final
state of the function when fully run. The fact that a simulation doesn't
get there because the simulation was stopped before it happened to get
there proves nothing.

The Halting problem does not pertain to the behavior of P, it only
pertains the behavior of the input to P.

the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem
is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w,
does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a
computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317).

The input to H(P,P) does not reach its final state whether or not H ever
aborts the simulation of this input.

This is where you attention deficit disorder comes in. You can't seem to
be able to pay attention to the steps that prove:

the input to H(P,P) does not reach its final state whether or not H ever
aborts the simulation of this input.

THIS sort of 'Misuse of Terminology' is why your whole arguments isn't
worth the paper it is written on.

To paraphrase Sargent Shultz, YOU KNOW NOTHING.

You don't seem to even know enough to see how idiodic your statements sound.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)