On 1/13/2024 5:56 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 17:46, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/12/2024 10:33 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/12/24 15:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If that was true then the question of the barber paradox would be:
>>>> "Does the barber shave himself?" that has a correct answer of yes or
>>>> no.
>>>
>>> If that was false then the question of the halting paradox would be:
>>> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct
>>> execution of D(D) halt?"
>>>
>>
>> I am simply using your own reasoning and putting the full context
>> of the question that H is being asked directly into the question
>> just like you did for the Barber Paradox.
>
> No, you are putting the incorrect context in.
>
> *The correct context is:*
> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct execution
> of D(D) halt?"
>

You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.

*You are denying reality, this is not a good sign*

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

On 1/13/2024 5:56 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/12/24 17:46, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/12/2024 10:33 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/12/24 15:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If that was true then the question of the barber paradox would be:
>>>> "Does the barber shave himself?" that has a correct answer of yes or
>>>> no.
>>>
>>> If that was false then the question of the halting paradox would be:
>>> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct
>>> execution of D(D) halt?"
>>>
>>
>> I am simply using your own reasoning and putting the full context
>> of the question that H is being asked directly into the question
>> just like you did for the Barber Paradox.
>
> No, you are putting the incorrect context in.
>
> *The correct context is:*
> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct execution
> of D(D) halt?"
>

So you are wrong about this?
On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
> "Does the barber shave himself?" has a correct answer: it's one of
> "yes" or "no".
>
> "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
> himself?" has no correct answer.

*Applying your same reasoning to the Barber Paradox*
When we know whether or not the barber shaves himself and
this barber shaves everyone that does not shave themselves
then we can answer: Does the barber shave himself?

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

On 1/13/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 5:56 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 17:46, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2024 10:33 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/24 15:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If that was true then the question of the barber paradox would be:
>>>>> "Does the barber shave himself?" that has a correct answer of yes
>>>>> or no.
>>>>
>>>> If that was false then the question of the halting paradox would be:
>>>> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct
>>>> execution of D(D) halt?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am simply using your own reasoning and putting the full context
>>> of the question that H is being asked directly into the question
>>> just like you did for the Barber Paradox.
>>
>> No, you are putting the incorrect context in.
>>
>> *The correct context is:*
>> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct
>> execution of D(D) halt?"
>>
>
> So you are wrong about this?
> On 1/6/2024 1:54 PM, immibis wrote:
> > "Does the barber shave himself?" has a correct answer: it's one of
> > "yes" or "no".
> >
> > "Does a barber who shaves every man who does not shave himself shave
> > himself?" has no correct answer.
>
> *Applying your same reasoning to the Barber Paradox*
> When we know whether or not the barber shaves himself and
> this barber shaves everyone that does not shave themselves
> then we can answer: Does the barber shave himself?
>

And the problem in the Barber paradox was that the BARBER doesn't exist,
not that there was any problem with shaving.

In the same way, your HALT DECIDER doesn't exist, the one that
supposedly correctly decideds based on its correct simulation of the input.

So, nothing wrong with "Halting", everything wrong with trying to define
the criteria to be based on the deciders own simulation instead of the
actual behavior.

On 1/13/24 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/13/2024 5:56 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/12/24 17:46, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/12/2024 10:33 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/24 15:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If that was true then the question of the barber paradox would be:
>>>>> "Does the barber shave himself?" that has a correct answer of yes
>>>>> or no.
>>>>
>>>> If that was false then the question of the halting paradox would be:
>>>> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct
>>>> execution of D(D) halt?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am simply using your own reasoning and putting the full context
>>> of the question that H is being asked directly into the question
>>> just like you did for the Barber Paradox.
>>
>> No, you are putting the incorrect context in.
>>
>> *The correct context is:*
>> "When H correctly solves the halting problem, does the direct
>> execution of D(D) halt?"
>>
>
> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.
>
> *You are denying reality, this is not a good sign*
>

But that only happens when the input isn't the input required of the
proof, naming an input that represents an ACTUAL PROGRAM.

And even then, the INPUT behaved the same, it was that H does an
incorrect simulation and aborted based on assuming the H that D called
was a different routine than it actually was.

On 1/13/24 16:07, olcott wrote:
>
> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.

H and H1 are different programs because they check for different machine
addresses. It is not surprising, or profound, that they have different
behaviour.

On 1/14/2024 3:01 AM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/13/24 16:07, olcott wrote:
>>
>> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
>> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
>> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.
>
> H and H1 are different programs because they check for different machine
> addresses. It is not surprising, or profound, that they have different
> behaviour.
>

We already know that D(D) halts and that D correctly
simulated by H cannot possibly halt, why is this so
difficult for you? Do you have no experience doing
actual programming?

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

On 1/14/24 10:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/14/2024 3:01 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/13/24 16:07, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
>>> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
>>> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.
>>
>> H and H1 are different programs because they check for different
>> machine addresses. It is not surprising, or profound, that they have
>> different behaviour.
>>
>
> We already know that D(D) halts and that D correctly
> simulated by H cannot possibly halt, why is this so
> difficult for you? Do you have no experience doing
> actual programming?
>

But those are different "D", and you are just caught in your lie.

The D(D) That Halts is the D that is based on the decider that you claim
is correct, and that aborts its simulation (and thus doesn't do an
actually complete correcdt simulation) and that proves that it wasn't
correct.

THe D correctly simulated by H, by the definition, a diffferent program
D based on a different H, the H, that never aborts its simulation and
thus never gives an answer.

Why are you so supprised that different programs behave differently.
This just shows that you can't do "Halt Deciding" on "Templates" but
must do it on the actual individual programs, as Compuation Theory
actually says you should.

This just throws out your entire body of logic, as it seems to have been
based on an improper question.

I guess YOU are the one that doesn't have any real experience with
actual programming.

On 1/14/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
> On 1/14/2024 3:01 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/13/24 16:07, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
>>> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
>>> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.
>>
>> H and H1 are different programs because they check for different
>> machine addresses. It is not surprising, or profound, that they have
>> different behaviour.
>>
>
> We already know that D(D) halts and that D correctly
> simulated by H cannot possibly halt

Definition of "correctly simulated":

X is correctly simulated by Y if the simulation of X by Y behaves
isomorphically to the direct execution of X.

On 1/14/2024 10:54 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/14/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/14/2024 3:01 AM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 1/13/24 16:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
>>>> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
>>>> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.
>>>
>>> H and H1 are different programs because they check for different
>>> machine addresses. It is not surprising, or profound, that they have
>>> different behaviour.
>>>
>>
>> We already know that D(D) halts and that D correctly
>> simulated by H cannot possibly halt
>
> Definition of "correctly simulated":
>
> X is correctly simulated by Y if the simulation of X by Y behaves
> isomorphically to the direct execution of X.
>

The C programming language <is> a formal language of a formal system.

The execution trace that D correctly simulated by H specifies <is>
a formal proof of the behavior that D correctly simulated by H
specifies.

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

On 1/15/24 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/14/2024 10:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/14/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/14/2024 3:01 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/24 16:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
>>>>> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
>>>>> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.
>>>>
>>>> H and H1 are different programs because they check for different
>>>> machine addresses. It is not surprising, or profound, that they have
>>>> different behaviour.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We already know that D(D) halts and that D correctly
>>> simulated by H cannot possibly halt
>>
>> Definition of "correctly simulated":
>>
>> X is correctly simulated by Y if the simulation of X by Y behaves
>> isomorphically to the direct execution of X.
>>
>
> The C programming language <is> a formal language of a formal system.
>
> The execution trace that D correctly simulated by H specifies <is>
> a formal proof of the behavior that D correctly simulated by H
> specifies.
>

And proves that your H that does that doesn't answer.

And the H that does answer doesn't correctly simulate.

Your H is just like the barber, either it shaves itself because it
doesn't shave itself, or it doesn't shave itself because it shaves itself.

On 1/16/24 00:53, olcott wrote:
> On 1/14/2024 10:54 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/14/24 16:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/14/2024 3:01 AM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/24 16:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You continue to deny the verified fact that an input that does the
>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns has been proven
>>>>> to have different behavior than this same input to H1 where D has
>>>>> not been defined to do the opposite of whatever H1 returns.
>>>>
>>>> H and H1 are different programs because they check for different
>>>> machine addresses. It is not surprising, or profound, that they have
>>>> different behaviour.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We already know that D(D) halts and that D correctly
>>> simulated by H cannot possibly halt
>>
>> Definition of "correctly simulated":
>>
>> X is correctly simulated by Y if the simulation of X by Y behaves
>> isomorphically to the direct execution of X.
>>
>
> The C programming language <is> a formal language of a formal system.

I didn't see cutm. Where is it?

>
> The execution trace that D correctly simulated by H specifies <is>
> a formal proof of the behavior that D correctly simulated by H
> specifies.
>

My H just writes completely random traces. I suppose that's a formal
proof too?