----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: U3w1.261425@fx09.iad>
5c7da2fb
@REPLY: 2@dont-email.me> db6b4267
@REPLYADDR Richard Damon
<Richard@Damon-Family.org>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Richard Damon
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 3@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me> 1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>
@RFC-Message-ID:
U3w1.261425@fx09.iad>
@TZUTC: -0400
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 8/22/23 11:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/22/2023 4:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2023-08-21 14:49:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> All deciders must map THEIR INPUT to an accept or reject state
>>> on the basis of a property of THIS INPUT.
>>
>> That is the only thing they can do, eeven if required something else.
>>
>> For a halting deider the property is whether that input is a
>> description of a halting computation.
>>
>>> All halt deciders must map THEIR INPUT to an accept or reject state
>>> on the basis of the behavior specified by THIS ACTUAL INPUT.
>>
>> Which is the actual behaviour of the actual Turing machine
>> described by the input.
>
> THIS CANNOT IGNORE THE CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR CAUSED BY THE SPECIFIED
> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP THAT IS STIPULATED BY THE SOURCE-CODE OF
> D AND H.
It doesn`t "Change the behavior" because the behavior of a program is
fixed the moment the program comes into existance.
Tha ACTUAL behavior of a correct simulation of a Turing Machine is the
same as the ACTUAL behavior of the direct running of it.
The behavior of H for all inputs was FIXED the moment you actually
defined H as a actual program. From that behavior, we can define a
program D that does this "pathological" relationship.
The only way H can try to defeat this, is to not actually BE a
"program", which seems to be the nature of your logic, claiming that H
does something that H doesn`t do.
In other words, you are just admitting to LYING about what you are doing.
>
>>> The actual behavior specified by this actual input is the behavior
>>> of D correctly simulated by H.
>>
>> So you say but haven`t proven. Instead, you have proven that it is not.
>
> I have proven it many times and yet my reviewers insist on a break
> from reality by making sure to ignore that actual behavior that is
> actually specified by the source-code of D and H that specifies their
> pathological relationship to each other.
The ACTUAL behavior of D(D), bassed on your actual provided definition
of H is to Halt.
The ACTUAL behavior of H(D,D), is to say "Non-Halting".
BY DEFINITION, this says that H is NOT a "Halt Decider".
Your logic is incorrect, because you claim H somehow "does a correct
simulation" when it actually doesn`t, because you just LIE about how H
behaves, even when that behavior is easily proven.
>
> // The following is written in C
> //
> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
> 03
> 04 int D(ptr x)
> 05 {
> 06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 07 if (Halt_Status)
> 08 HERE: goto HERE;
> 09 return Halt_Status;
> 10 }
> 11
> 12 void main()
> 13 {
> 14 H(D,D);
> 15 }
>
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 14: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Nope, ABORTS Because that is what H is programed to Do.
You just don`t understand the vocabulary of programs.
> Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 06.
No, the INCORRECT simulation done by H aborts at that point.
THE CORRECT SIMULATION of the input, which THIS H can`t do, shows that
the input represents a Halting Compuation.
>
> It is an easily verified fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot
> possibly reach past its own line 06. The only way to disagree with this
> is through a break from reality.
>
No, it is easily verified that H does not "correctly simulate" its input.
And, that you don`t understand what "Reality" or "Truth" actually mean.
Whch is why you are shown to be just a blantant liar.
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: Forte - www.forteinc.com (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441