On 3/17/2023 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/17/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/17/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2023 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2023 4:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that directly
>>>>>>>> executed D(D) would remain stuck in recursive simulation (run
>>>>>>>> forever) unless H aborts its simulation of D this directly
>>>>>>>> applies to the halting theorem because H correctly determines:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>>     whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
>>>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     For any program H that might determine whether programs halt,
>>>>>>>>     a "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>     own source and its input to H and then specifically do the
>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>     of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 01 int D(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is the sequence when H never aborts it simulation: proving (a)
>>>>>>>>    main() calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
>>>>>>>>    keeps repeating: simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D) that
>>>>>>>> simulates D(D) at line 03 ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it is understood that halting requires reaching a final
>>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>>> stopping for any other reason does not count as halting then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> its own
>>>>>>>> final state at line 6 conclusively proves that this D does not
>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When H returns 0 it is only affirming this verified fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it is understood that all deciders compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> inputs to a final accept or reject state then it is understood
>>>>>>>> that H
>>>>>>>> must only evaluate the behavior of its input and the behavior of
>>>>>>>> non-
>>>>>>>> inputs is not allowed to be considered.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient software engineering knowledge knows that D
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by any element of the infinite set of every
>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>> H cannot possibly reach past its own line 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People with attention deficit disorder have to be told the same thing
>>>>>> hundreds many hundreds of times before they first notice that they
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been told this thing at least once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>
>>>>> The above words are a verified fact, changing these words to form a
>>>>> rebuttal on the basis of these changed words is known as the strawman
>>>>> deception.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 to its caller it is merely affirming the above
>>>> verified fact, therefore H is necessarily correct and impossibly
>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>> no matter what H does because halting requires reaching a final state
>> Therefore any H(D,D) that returns 0 is necessarily correct.
>>
>
> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
>
> because halting requires reaching a final state
> and D simulated by H never reaches its final state
>
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
> no matter what H does
>
> Therefore any H(D,D) that returns 0 is necessarily correct.
>

Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.

Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.

Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.

Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.

Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/17/23 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/17/2023 7:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/17/2023 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2023 6:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/17/2023 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/17/2023 4:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 3:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2023 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that directly
>>>>>>>>> executed D(D) would remain stuck in recursive simulation (run
>>>>>>>>> forever) unless H aborts its simulation of D this directly
>>>>>>>>> applies to the halting theorem because H correctly determines:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an
>>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>>>     whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
>>>>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     For any program H that might determine whether programs halt,
>>>>>>>>>     a "pathological" program D, called with some input, can
>>>>>>>>> pass its
>>>>>>>>>     own source and its input to H and then specifically do the
>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>>     of what H predicts D will do.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is the sequence when H never aborts it simulation: proving
>>>>>>>>> (a)
>>>>>>>>>    main() calls H(D,D) that simulates D(D) at line 11
>>>>>>>>>    keeps repeating: simulated D(D) calls simulated H(D,D) that
>>>>>>>>> simulates D(D) at line 03 ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it is understood that halting requires reaching a final
>>>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>>>> stopping for any other reason does not count as halting then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> its own
>>>>>>>>> final state at line 6 conclusively proves that this D does not
>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When H returns 0 it is only affirming this verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When it is understood that all deciders compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>> from their
>>>>>>>>> inputs to a final accept or reject state then it is understood
>>>>>>>>> that H
>>>>>>>>> must only evaluate the behavior of its input and the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of non-
>>>>>>>>> inputs is not allowed to be considered.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone with sufficient software engineering knowledge knows that D
>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by any element of the infinite set of every
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> H cannot possibly reach past its own line 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People with attention deficit disorder have to be told the same
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>> hundreds many hundreds of times before they first notice that
>>>>>>> they have
>>>>>>> been told this thing at least once.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above words are a verified fact, changing these words to form a
>>>>>> rebuttal on the basis of these changed words is known as the strawman
>>>>>> deception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0 to its caller it is merely affirming the above
>>>>> verified fact, therefore H is necessarily correct and impossibly
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>> no matter what H does because halting requires reaching a final state
>>> Therefore any H(D,D) that returns 0 is necessarily correct.
>>>
>>
>> every D correctly simulated by any H never halts
>>
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>>
>> because halting requires reaching a final state
>> and D simulated by H never reaches its final state
>>
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>> no matter what H does
>>
>> Therefore any H(D,D) that returns 0 is necessarily correct.
>>
>
> Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
> necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.
>
> Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
> necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.
>
> Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
> necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.
>
> Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
> necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.
>
> Unless one rejects the notion of a UTM D correctly simulated by H
> necessarily reports on the exact behavior that D specifies to H.
>

H isn't a UTM if it aborts its simulation.

As pointed out before, when H IS a UTM because it doesn't abort, you are
correct that D(D) is non-halting, but then H can't abort its simulation
as that makes it never a UTM.

As also pointed out before your Hn (the H that doesn't abort) will
correct determine any Di(Di) [other than Dn(Dn)] to be Halting, so the
UTM arguement just proves you don't understand what you are talking about.

You keep on imagining things to be what they aren't, in other words, you
are thinking in LIES.