Re: olcott is absolutely and totally correct. [ Visual Studio c/c++ project ]

[olcott]

On 10/2/2022 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/2/22 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/2/2022 12:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/2/22 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2022 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/1/22 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/1/2022 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/1/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you fall trap to the ad Hominem Fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What does it matter what my background is, when I state FACTS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You forget all of the prior discussion and we have to go through
>>>>>>>> these same points again and again ad infinitum. The first guess
>>>>>>>> is that you are trolling me and don't believe that counts as
>>>>>>>> lying. If it does count as lying the penalty might be
>>>>>>>> Revelations 21:8 eternal incineration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alternatively you have mild dementia and can somehow get away
>>>>>>>> with this at work with no one noticing. The key fact is that you
>>>>>>>> always make sure to ignore everything that was previously said.
>>>>>>>> This makes an honest dialogue impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, because if you actually HAD something previously actually
>>>>>>> proved, you would just write it up and put it on the non-peer
>>>>>>> reviewed sight like you keep on doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am waiting until someone acknowledged that they understand me
>>>>>> before I can maximize the effectiveness of my words such that a
>>>>>> publication review would be approved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How can anyone understand you if you don't give the actual proof.
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully understand what you are saying, and am pointing out your
>>>>> errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned a long time ago, if you listen to the things people
>>>>> are pointing out to you, you might be able to learn enough to
>>>>> actually be able to accomplish something. Because you have
>>>>> stubbornly refused to learn, you have made your self more ignrant
>>>>> and spoiled your reputation, and made these last 18 years just a
>>>>> waste.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't do that when all of my reviewers are only trolling me or
>>>>>> are incompetent. Most of my reviewers were only ever interested in
>>>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't "rebuttal" wat you are looking for? You need to have people
>>>>> point out the flawed parts of your argument so you can fix things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People point out the "flaws" where there are no flaws.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you know what the word means.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are looking for "Yes Men", that just proves that you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am looking for people that agree with the things that I am correct
>>>> about and point out the errors of the things that I am incorrect about.
>>>> What I have is people that disagree with everything that I say and
>>>> agree with nothing that I say.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proved that none of these rebuttals were valid yet people only
>>>>>> interested in rebuttal didn't want to hear this.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you haven't proved any such thing. Please show an actual PROOF
>>>>> by the definitions of Formal Logic for this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On example is below:
>>>>
>>>>> You just are showing you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs,
>>>>>> non-inputs really don't count.
>>>>>> non-inputs really don't count.
>>>>>> non-inputs really don't count.
>>>>>> non-inputs really don't count.
>>>>
>>>> This is necessarily true on the basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>
>>>> If I have a black dog in the living room and everyone in the
>>>> universe tries to gaslight me telling me that it is a white cat I am
>>>> not falling for it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you are admitting you can't prove it because you didn't even try.
>>>
>>
>> Every halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs on the
>> basis of the actual behavior of these inputs, thus the behavior of
>> non-inputs is irrelevant.
>>
>> *That you continue to assert otherwise proves that you are dishonest*
>>
>>
>
> Still non-responsive and LYING.
>
> I never denied that a Halt Decider must compute the mapping from its
> actual input based on the actual behavior of the input (at least when
> you fix the meaning of the behavior of an input, which for a HALT
> DECIDER, is DEFINED by the behavior of the machine the input represents).
>
That is merely your weasel worded (thus deceptive) way of referring to
the behavior of the non-input: int main() { P(P); }

typedef void (*ptr)();

void P(ptr x)
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its input halts
HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
return; // else P halts
}

The behavior of the infinite set of H/P pairs such that H correctly
simulates or directly executes 1 to ∞ steps of its input, P never
reaches its final state and halts.

On 7/24/2022 6:19 PM, Paul N wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 12:10:34 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> If a simulating halt decider continues to correctly
>> simulate its input until it correctly matches a non-halting
>> behavior pattern then this SHD is necessarily correct when
>> it aborts its simulation and reports non-halting.
>
> Yes, *If* a simulating halt decider continues to correctly
> simulate its input until it *correctly* matches a non-
> halting behaviour pattern then this SHD is correct when it
> aborts its simulation and reports non-halting.

The H/P pair meeting the above requirements is fully operational in this
system.

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project)
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) Complete x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
https://liarparadox.org/2022_09_07.zip


--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer