Category error

[Mr Flibble]

The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
refute anything of substance.

/Flibble

[olcott]

I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski 1936
undefinability.

I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven because
they are semantically ill-formed propositions.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

[wij]

Pete Olcott lied. There has never ever been a real simulation program.
All rebuttals are (finally) made against nothing.

Pete Olcott's brain is fossilized. All he says have no basis, just 'talk':
1. Rebuttal the HP -> No real H to rebuttal !
2. Various kind of claims based on POOH (or tautology)
3. deque implement -> No real codes allow him to claim anything !
4. ...His brain seems now further fossilizing by starting to redefine his logic !

But PO is very well enjoying his belief that he is THE talented/genius who can
hit/see others cannot.
Any rebuttal only strengthens his belief. (IOW, everybody else is idiot).

As to the title "Category error", is that another 'theory' ?

[Mr Flibble]

On Sat, 14 May 2022 10:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
wij <wyni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As to the title "Category error", is that another 'theory' ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

/Flibble

[olcott]

*A category mistake* or
*category error* or
*categorical mistake* or
*mistake of category*
is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a
particular category are presented as if they belong to a different
category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that
could not possibly have that property.

[Richard Damon]

On 5/14/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>> refute anything of substance.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
> brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski 1936
> undefinability.
>
> I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
> Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven because
> they are semantically ill-formed propositions.
>

Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you
define "Truth" as something it isn't

I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to
something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical Truth",
because "Truth Bearing" is NOT tied to being an Analytical Truth, but to
Truth in General. Every time you use that word, you prove your statement
to be a LIE.

An unprovable statement is still a Truth Bearer if the only possible
Truth Values for the statement are True or False.

The statement of the Collatz Conjecture is a Truth Bearer, even if it
turns out that the Collatz COnjecture is True but Unprovable.

You might not like that, But if it turns out that there is no actual N
that is a counter example, then it is True, even if the statement can
not be proven based on the existing axioms of the system.

[olcott]

On 5/14/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>>> refute anything of substance.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
>> brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski 1936
>> undefinability.
>>
>> I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
>> Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven
>> because they are semantically ill-formed propositions.
>>
>
> Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you
> define "Truth" as something it isn't
>

G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.

> I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to
> something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical Truth",
> because "Truth Bearing" is NOT tied to being an Analytical Truth, but to
> Truth in General. Every time you use that word, you prove your statement
> to be a LIE.
>
> An unprovable statement is still a Truth Bearer if the only possible
> Truth Values for the statement are True or False.
>
> The statement of the Collatz Conjecture is a Truth Bearer, even if it
> turns out that the Collatz COnjecture is True but Unprovable.
>
> You might not like that, But if it turns out that there is no actual N
> that is a counter example, then it is True, even if the statement can
> not be proven based on the existing axioms of the system.

[Richard Damon]

On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>>>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>>>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>>>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>>>> refute anything of substance.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a
>>> brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski
>>> 1936 undefinability.
>>>
>>> I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither
>>> Gödel's G nor Tarski's x are truth bearers thus cannot be proven
>>> because they are semantically ill-formed propositions.
>>>
>>
>> Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you
>> define "Truth" as something it isn't
>>
>
> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.

Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there
exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).

[olcott]

Gödel says:
We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
unprovability.

Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.

>>
>>> I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to
>>> something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical
>>> Truth", because "Truth Bearing" is NOT tied to being an Analytical
>>> Truth, but to Truth in General. Every time you use that word, you
>>> prove your statement to be a LIE.
>>>
>>> An unprovable statement is still a Truth Bearer if the only possible
>>> Truth Values for the statement are True or False.
>>>
>>> The statement of the Collatz Conjecture is a Truth Bearer, even if it
>>> turns out that the Collatz COnjecture is True but Unprovable.
>>>
>>> You might not like that, But if it turns out that there is no actual
>>> N that is a counter example, then it is True, even if the statement
>>> can not be proven based on the existing axioms of the system.
>>
>>
>

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-14 15:59, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:

>>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.
>>
>> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
>> fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there
>> exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>>
>
> Gödel says:
> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
> unprovability.

That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G.

> Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.

Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing
self-contradictory about this. A sentence which asserts its own falsity
is self-contradictory, one that asserts its own unprovability is not.

The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply to you.

First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the part
of his readership.

Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also following
along with the actual math.

And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret his
comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[olcott]

On 5/14/2022 5:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 15:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 4:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>> G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.
>>>
>>> Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a
>>> fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there
>>> exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).
>>>
>>
>> Gödel says:
>> We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own
>> unprovability.
>
> That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G.
>
>> Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.
>
> Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing
> self-contradictory about this.

8. I imagine someone asking my advice; he says: "I have constructed a
proposition (I will use 'P' to designate it) in Russell's symbolism,and
by means of certain definitions and transformations it can be so
interpreted that it says: 'P is not provable in Russell's system'. Must
I not say that this proposition on the one hand is true, and on the
other hand is unprovable? For suppose it were false; then it is true
that it is provable. And that surely cannot be! And if it is proved,
then it is proved that it is not provable. Thus it can only be true, but
unprovable. "

Just as we ask: " 'provable' in what system?", so we must also ask:"
'true' in what system?" 'True in Russell's system' means, as was said:
proved in Russell's system; and 'false in Russell's system' means:the
opposite has been proved in Russell's system.-Now what does your
"suppose it is false" mean? In the Russell sense it means 'suppose the
opposite is proved in Russell's system'; if that is your assumption, you
will now presumably give up the interpretation that it is unprovable.

And by 'this interpretation' I understand the translation into this
English sentence.-If you assume that the proposition is provable in
Russell's system, that means it' is true in the Russell sense, and the
interpretation "P is not provable" again has to be given up. If you
assume that the proposition is true in the Russell sense, the same thing
follows...

Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
(Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
The MIT Press

> A sentence which asserts its own falsity
> is self-contradictory, one that asserts its own unprovability is not.
>

When an expression of language is asserting its own unprovability it is
also asserting that it is untrue in the same system that it is
unprovable. This means that F is not incomplete, it is merely that G is
untrue.

> The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
> audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply to
> you.
>
> First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the part
> of his readership.
>
> Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also following
> along with the actual math.
>
> And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
> effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret his
> comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
> interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.
>
> André
>


--

[Richard Damon]

And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at
this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing
what he is talking about.

>
>> A sentence which asserts its own falsity is self-contradictory, one
>> that asserts its own unprovability is not.
>>
>
> When an expression of language is asserting its own unprovability it is
> also asserting that it is untrue in the same system that it is
> unprovable. This means that F is not incomplete, it is merely that G is
> untrue.

What rule is that?

The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so isnt'
True by its own words), and only applies in a system that accepts it as
a basis, so it can be true.

FAIL.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:

>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England:
>> The MIT Press
>>
> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at
> this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing
> what he is talking about.

There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal which
was never intended for publication (which explains why he never bothered
to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).

Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
out to him repeatedly.

[olcott]

Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
(Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics
>>>> (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
>>>> England: The MIT Press
>>>>
>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>
>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal which
>> was never intended for publication (which explains why he never
>> bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).
>>
>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
>> out to him repeatedly.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).

That's an assertion, not an argument.

> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).

That's an assertion, not an argument.

And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and false.

[olcott]

This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
diverges from this it becomes incorrect.

Try and find any example of analytical truth that cannot be proven to be

true.

> FAIL.
>
>>
>>> The big problem here is that you are clearly not Gödel's intended
>>> audience. Gödel makes three crucial assumptions, none of which apply
>>> to you.
>>>
>>> First, he assumes a certain minimal background in the field on the
>>> part of his readership.
>>>
>>> Second, he assumes that people reading his commentary are also
>>> following along with the actual math.
>>>
>>> And thirdly, he assumes his audience is actually making a good-faith
>>> effort to actually understand what he is saying and will interpret
>>> his comments accordingly rather than seizing on some misguided
>>> interpretation which clearly does not match the actual math.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>>
>

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>
>
> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.

Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you point
us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are collected?

Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?

[Richard Damon]

Yes, it proves that correct reasoning must be incorrect, because it says
the laws of logic don't apply to the fields that they apply to.

>
> Try and find any example of analytical truth that cannot be proven to be
> true.

Wrong Question, showing you are still stuck in a category error.

You keep on saying that a TRUTH that cannot be proves isn't True.

Your wording has proven your system in inconsistent, because in one set
of words you restrict yourelf to "Analytic Truths", but then you assert
your conclusion on "All Truth"

Your logic is proven inconsistent in definition (which is as close a
system gets to be logically "incorrect"),

[Richard Damon]

On 5/14/22 7:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>
>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>>
>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal
>>> which was never intended for publication (which explains why he never
>>> bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).
>>>
>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
>>> out to him repeatedly.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.

And an UNPROVEN assertion, so by its own meaning, self-contradictory.

[olcott]

On 5/14/2022 6:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 17:27, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-14 17:00, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/22 6:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1983. Remarks on the Foundations of
>>>>> Mathematics (Appendix III), 118-119.Cambridge, Massachusetts and
>>>>> London, England: The MIT Press
>>>>>
>>>> And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper
>>>> at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know
>>>> knowing what he is talking about.
>>>
>>> There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial
>>> reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal
>>> which was never intended for publication (which explains why he never
>>> bothered to retract this remark once the error became clear to him).
>>>
>>> Olcott, on the other hand, is intent on broadcasting his
>>> misunderstanding to the world even after his errors have been pointed
>>> out to him repeatedly.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F).
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>

Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy.

Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky.

KEY_INSIGHT:
(a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including
all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic connections
between elements of this same body.

(b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
through semantic connections.

*The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*

STANDARD_MEANING:
(c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of their
meaning.

∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is based
on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or fail
verification.

>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>
> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>
> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
> excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and
> false.
>
> André
>


--

[olcott]

On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>
>>
>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>
> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you point
> us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are collected?
>
> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>
> André
>

Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.

[André G. Isaak]

Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time.

> KEY_INSIGHT:
> (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including
> all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as semantic connections
> between elements of this same body.

Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument.

> (b) All analytic expressions of language only obtain their meaning
> through semantic connections.

Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your
use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to correspond to the standard
usage. The analytic/synthetic distinction is one that normally arises
when talking about the philosophy of language, not logic.

> *The proof of these two is that no counter-examples can be found*

That is not how proofs work. You're the one making a claim. The burden
of proof lies with you.

And your specific claims are far too vaguely defined for anyone to track
down counterexamples. For example, I have absolutely no idea what you
mean by 'semantic connection'.

> STANDARD_MEANING:
> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of their
> meaning.

That's not the standard meaning of 'analytic'.

> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is based
> on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or fail
> verification.

Again, that's just a baseless assertion, not an argument.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>
>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>> collected?
>>
>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.

Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?

[olcott]

I will make that one concrete.
Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to anything
else that shows that it is true.

[olcott]

I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-05-14 22:14, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>>> collected?
>>>>
>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>
>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
>> what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.

You certainly have not done this so far. And you have a bad habit of
referring to statements which are clearly false as 'self-evidently correct'.

[olcott]

Self evidently correct means that there are connected ideas that prove
it is correct.

[André G. Isaak]

How does that make anything more concrete? If I don't know what you mean
by 'semantic connection' why do you think I will know what you mean by
'connected'?

And this is besides the point since you have the burden of proof
backwards. It's not incumbent on anyone to find counterexamples to every
random 'theory' that someone on usenet puts forward. Its incumbent on
the person putting forth the theory to provide proof.

[olcott]

This is great we are trying to attain mutulual understanding now.

When you look to see how you know anything about anything it is all
connections between meanings.

This is a connected set of meanings:
"I am going to go to the store to buy some eggs."

> And this is besides the point since you have the burden of proof
> backwards. It's not incumbent on anyone to find counterexamples to every
> random 'theory' that someone on usenet puts forward. Its incumbent on
> the person putting forth the theory to provide proof.
>
> André
>


--

[Mikko]

On 2022-05-14 16:05:55 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
> refute anything of substance.

Olcott's error contains an indirect recursion that is or is not infinite
depending on details of his H. It is not possible to point a single
statement of the program and say that the error is there, as there are
other points that could be changed so that the infinite recursion
disappears.

A category error is different: it is contained in a single sentence
where one word or phase is incompatible with the place where it is put.

Mikko

[Richard Damon]

Which PROVES that you don't know the meaning of the word PROOF.

By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many others, are
PROVED.

>
> STANDARD_MEANING:
> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of their
> meaning.

Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True".

>
> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is based
> on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or fail
> verification.
>

Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
based on it becomes UNSOND.

[Richard Damon]

One of:

The Collbatz conjecture is True.

The Collbatz conjecture is False.

[Richard Damon]

On 5/15/22 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2022 11:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-05-14 21:04, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2022 6:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-14 17:35, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT been proven (so
>>>>>> isnt' True by its own words), and only applies in a system that
>>>>>> accepts it as a basis, so it can be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic
>>>>> diverges from this it becomes incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you
>>>> point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are
>>>> collected?
>>>>
>>>> Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.
>>
>> Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is
>> concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of
>> what constitutes 'correct reasoning'?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.
>

Given your track record, that makes it almost certainly wrong.

Self-Evident, for logic, is a GROUP decision, that the group accepts it
as self-evident and usable as a basis for common understanding.

YOU fail with that definition.

Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description of
most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR to be
self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.

[André G. Isaak]

I thought the issue being discussed was truth. How we know things is an
entirely separate issue.

> This is a connected set of meanings:
> "I am going to go to the store to buy some eggs."

No amount of examples is a substitute for a definition (especially
examples like the above which have absolutely no explanation given along
with them).

A definition should take the following form:

Two items, A and B, are semantically connected iff ...

[olcott]

On 5/15/2022 4:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-05-14 16:05:55 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>
>> The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting
>> theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in
>> Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite
>> recursion in his simulation; his simulation is thus invalid and doesn't
>> refute anything of substance.
>
> Olcott's error contains an indirect recursion that is or is not infinite
> depending on details of his H.

The key point is that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)
never reaches its own final state thus never halts.

> It is not possible to point a single
> statement of the program and say that the error is there, as there are
> other points that could be changed so that the infinite recursion
> disappears.

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

>
> A category error is different: it is contained in a single sentence
> where one word or phase is incompatible with the place where it is put.
>
> Mikko
>

[olcott]

The elements of the body of conceptual truth are connected together
semantically mutually defining the semantic meaning of each other.

Mostly this is done in an inheritance hierarchy such that specific
concepts are defined in terms of broader ones.

[olcott]

Proof generically means that an expression of language has been
definitely established as true by some means.

> By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many others, are
> PROVED.
>
>
>>
>> STANDARD_MEANING:
>> (c) Analytic expressions of language are only true on the basis of
>> their meaning.
>
> Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True".
>

That is the definition of analytic truth.

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
knowing those meanings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

>>
>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
>> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is
>> based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or
>> fail verification.
>>
>
> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
> based on it becomes UNSOND.

I think that we agree on this.

>>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>>
>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>
>>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the
>>> excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and
>>> false.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>>
>

[olcott]

That is connected to tautology.

[olcott]

A self-evident truth proves that it is completely true entirely on the
basis of its meaning. If everyone in the universe disagrees then
everyone in the universe is wrong.

> YOU fail with that definition.
>
> Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description of
> most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR to be
> self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
knowing those meanings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

[Richard Damon]

Nope. We know that one of the sentences is true.

THAT sentence is not establisned by "Tautology"

That sentence being true disproves your statement.

Unless you are defining that "untrue or untrue" is True, you have a
problem (and if yoy do, you still have a proble).

[Richard Damon]

A self-evident truth requires ALL (or all reasonable) to aggree that it
is true. If someone sees something as true that no one else does, that
is not "self-evident truth", that is DELUSION.

>
>> YOU fail with that definition.
>>
>> Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description
>> of most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR to
>> be self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.
>
>
> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
> knowing those meanings.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>

Analyses of philosophically important terms and concepts, such as
“material object,” “cause,” “freedom,” or “knowledge” turned out,
however, to be far more problematic than philosophers had anticipated, ...


I will note that if you read through that article (I will admit I just
scanned it) it talks a lot about how mathematics cause PROBLEMS for the
analytic philosophies, and how to try to handle it.

I note it largely is talking about KNOWLEDGE, not actual TRUTH. it also
talks about how to try to LIMIT the domain of the logic to that which
can be reasoned (i.e. proved).

Yes, this is a valid domain to work in, but it CAN'T handle
"Mathematics" in the full sense, so can't be used to "Disprove" things
like the Halting Problem or the Incomplentness Theorem, because the
logics that define those problems are outside the domain that such a
logic can handle.

You just don't understand that basic property of logic.

[Richard Damon]

No, it didn't, at least NOT with a "Correct Trace". It sees it a trace
of P where H has been replaced with just a call to its input.

Since that is NOT what H is, the logic is based on a false premise, an
is thus unsound.

If you are defining that to be correct, then your logic is incorrrect,
or at least NOT the "Halting Problem".

All you have done is maybe show that your H can decides your POOP
correctly, not Halting.

[Richard Damon]

Note "Historically", that was what was assumed to be a characteristic of
such statements, that they could be shown true or false by a manner of
proof.

Then, we got the proof that some statements, that might want to be
called analytic couldn't be proven or disproven.

As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic", or
is it more emperical.

Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
emperical truth show to be true because it just works.

Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper to
analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.

>
>>>
>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that x
>>> has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is
>>> based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or
>>> fail verification.
>>>
>>
>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
>> based on it becomes UNSOND.
>
> I think that we agree on this.

So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?

[olcott]

You did not provide an example of a sentence that is true that is not

connected to anything else that shows that it is true.

We know that logic sentences are true or false on the basis of the
definition of logic sentence.

> Unless you are defining that "untrue or untrue" is True, you have a
> problem (and if yoy do, you still have a proble).

[olcott]

Not at all. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT IS DEFINED.

> If someone sees something as true that no one else does, that
> is not "self-evident truth", that is DELUSION.
>
>>
>>> YOU fail with that definition.
>>>
>>> Also "can be Seen to be self-evidently correct" is a good description
>>> of most of the fallicies, and many of the errors, they might APPEAR
>>> to be self-evident, but on closer examination prove to be wrong.
>>
>>
>> “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have
>> historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the
>> meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by
>> knowing those meanings.
>> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
>>
>
> Analyses of philosophically important terms and concepts, such as
> “material object,” “cause,” “freedom,” or “knowledge” turned out,
> however, to be far more problematic than philosophers had anticipated, ...
>

It was only the quoted paragraph that was significant.
Every expression of formal or natural language that can be determined to
be true entirely on the basis of its meaning is an analytic expression
language.

> I will note that if you read through that article (I will admit I just
> scanned it) it talks a lot about how mathematics cause PROBLEMS for the
> analytic philosophies, and how to try to handle it.
>
> I note it largely is talking about KNOWLEDGE, not actual TRUTH. it also
> talks about how to try to LIMIT the domain of the logic to that which
> can be reasoned (i.e. proved).
>
> Yes, this is a valid domain to work in, but it CAN'T handle
> "Mathematics" in the full sense, so can't be used to "Disprove" things
> like the Halting Problem or the Incomplentness Theorem, because the
> logics that define those problems are outside the domain that such a
> logic can handle.
>
> You just don't understand that basic property of logic.

[olcott]

When we know that H only performs a pure simulation of its input then we
don't need to see the hundreds of pages of execution trace of H.

SINCE I TOLD YOU THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES YOU ARE BEING QUITE DESPICABLY
DISHONEST ABOUT THIS.

> Since that is NOT what H is, the logic is based on a false premise, an
> is thus unsound.
>
> If you are defining that to be correct, then your logic is incorrrect,
> or at least NOT the "Halting Problem".
>
> All you have done is maybe show that your H can decides your POOP
> correctly, not Halting.
>
>>
>>>
>>> A category error is different: it is contained in a single sentence
>>> where one word or phase is incompatible with the place where it is put.
>>>
>>> Mikko
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P

This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about.
The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's
something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and
entering a simulator.

You've admitted you edit some traces which is really not on. I think
you should stop posting them until you can be honest about them.

Mind you, my personally guess is that the trace is fundamentally honest
about you've been pulling our legs about what H really does. It's just
the top-level x86 emulator that does that does any "simulating" and H
really does call P which calls H which calls P...

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

[olcott]

There is no freaking "might want" there is only <is> and <not is>.
If you "might want the definitions of a term to be different than it is
then you are simply screwy.

> As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic", or
> is it more emperical.
>

It is stipulated that math and logic are purely analytical.

> Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of
> the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
> doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
> emperical truth show to be true because it just works.
>

Empirical means that you must be able to taste, touch, smell, or hear it.

> Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper to
> analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that
>>>> x has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x) is
>>>> based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified or
>>>> fail verification.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY arguement
>>> based on it becomes UNSOND.
>>
>> I think that we agree on this.
>
> So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?

Unproven means unsound. Sound requires proven.

>>
>>>>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of
>>>>> the excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only
>>>>> true and false.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[olcott]

On 5/18/2022 10:31 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
>
> This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about.
> The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's
> something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and
> entering a simulator.
>

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT H PERFORMS A PURE SIMULATION
OF ITS INPUT THUS HAS NO BEHAVIOR THAT CAN HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE
BEHAVIOR OF ITS INPUT THUS NO NEED TO SEE ITS HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF
EXECUTION TRACE ???

> You've admitted you edit some traces which is really not on. I think
> you should stop posting them until you can be honest about them.
>

YOU ARE SUCH A JACKASS. (and much better programmer than I knew).

> Mind you, my personally guess is that the trace is fundamentally honest
> about you've been pulling our legs about what H really does. It's just
> the top-level x86 emulator that does that does any "simulating" and H
> really does call P which calls H which calls P...
>


--

[olcott]

On 5/18/2022 10:31 AM, Ben wrote:

ON THE BASIS OF THE X86 MACHINE CODE PROVIDED FOR P AND THE
EXECUTION TRACE OF P PROVIDED BY H IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT
THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P IS THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P THAT
WOULD OCCUR IF H PERFORMED A PURE SIMULATION OF THE FIRST
13 INSTRUCTIONS OF P.

BECAUSE OF THIS THE INSISTENCE ON SEEING THE HUNDREDS OF
PAGES OF THE EXECUTION TRACE OF H OR THE SOURCE-CODE OF H
IS A JACKASS MOVE THAT IS ONLY PLAYING HEAD GAMES.

#include <stdint.h>
#define u32 uint32_t

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

int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]

_main()
[00001372](01) 55 push ebp
[00001373](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001375](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137a](05) 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
[0000137f](05) e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H
[00001384](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001387](01) 50 push eax
[00001388](05) 6823040000 push 00000423 // "Input_Halts = "
[0000138d](05) e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
[00001392](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001395](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
[00001397](01) 5d pop ebp
[00001398](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0039) [00001398]

machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00001372][0010229e][00000000] 55 push ebp
...[00001373][0010229e][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001375][0010229a][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
...[0000137a][00102296][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
...[0000137f][00102292][00001384] e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P

...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

...[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50 push eax
...[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 //
"Input_Halts = "
---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
Input_Halts = 0
...[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
...[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d pop ebp
...[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3 ret
Number_of_User_Instructions(1)
Number of Instructions Executed(15892)


Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

[Richard Damon]

One of these sentences is such an example, I don't know which one:

The Collbatz conjecture is True.

The Collbatz conjecture is False.

The fact that I don't know which one doesn't make the arguement invalid,
it points out that there is a limit to knowledge.

A second example.

Godel sentence G is True.

You may not accept that it is True, but it is. To quote from one of your
favorite sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

The Gödel sentence is designed to refer, indirectly, to itself. The
sentence states that, when a particular sequence of steps is used to
construct another sentence, that constructed sentence will not be
provable in F. However, the sequence of steps is such that the
constructed sentence turns out to be GF itself. In this way, the Gödel
sentence GF indirectly states its own unprovability within F (Smith
2007, p. 135).

To prove the first incompleteness theorem, Gödel demonstrated that the
notion of provability within a system could be expressed purely in terms
of arithmetical functions that operate on Gödel numbers of sentences of
the system. Therefore, the system, which can prove certain facts about
numbers, can also indirectly prove facts about its own statements,
provided that it is effectively generated. Questions about the
provability of statements within the system are represented as questions
about the arithmetical properties of numbers themselves, which would be
decidable by the system if it were complete.

Thus, although the Gödel sentence refers indirectly to sentences of the
system F, when read as an arithmetical statement the Gödel sentence
directly refers only to natural numbers. It asserts that no natural
number has a particular property, where that property is given by a
primitive recursive relation (Smith 2007, p. 141). As such, the Gödel
sentence can be written in the language of arithmetic with a simple
syntactic form. In particular, it can be expressed as a formula in the
language of arithmetic consisting of a number of leading universal
quantifiers followed by a quantifier-free body (these formulas are at
level Π 1 0 {\displaystyle \Pi _{1}^{0}} \Pi _{1}^{0} of the
arithmetical hierarchy). Via the MRDP theorem, the Gödel sentence can be
re-written as a statement that a particular polynomial in many variables
with integer coefficients never takes the value zero when integers are
substituted for its variables (Franzén 2005, p. 71).


So the Godel sentence, being "Just" a mathematical sentence, if
definitionally a Truth Bearer, and either needs to be True, or it is False.

>
> We know that logic sentences are true or false on the basis of the
> definition of logic sentence.

Right, so G needs to be either True of False, and if it is False, then
we can prove it, making it True.

[Richard Damon]

A century ago, Math was thought to be Analytical, and all Analytical
statements eventually provable or refutable. It was then discovered that
this can not be true.

You need to decide, either you remove Mathematics from Analytical or you
remove Provable from Analytically True.

>
>> As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic", or
>> is it more emperical.
>>
>
> It is stipulated that math and logic are purely analytical.

Then there exists analytical statements that are True but not Provable.

That is PROVEN.

>
>> Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares
>> of the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
>> doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
>> emperical truth show to be true because it just works.
>>
>
> Empirical means that you must be able to taste, touch, smell, or hear it.

Then read section 2.1, Mathematics, by "Thought" can "verify" concepts
in the domain that can not be "Proven" by mean analytic proof.

You either need to consider that "Thought" as a sense, or admit that not
all Analytic Statements are provable.

>
>> Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper to
>> analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections that
>>>>> x has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the True(x)
>>>>> is based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are verified
>>>>> or fail verification.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY
>>>> arguement based on it becomes UNSOND.
>>>
>>> I think that we agree on this.
>>
>> So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?
>
> Unproven means unsound. Sound requires proven.

You just showed that you don't know the meaning.

CLAIMING something to be True without proof is Unsound, but an Unproven
fact is mearly unknown.

The Collbatz conjuecture is Unknown as to its Truth, but we KNOW that it
must be either True of False.

The Collbatz Conjecture is NOT "Unsound", because it doesn't assert that
it IS true, just believed to be.

[Richard Damon]

The PROVE that "The Square of the Hypotonuse of a Right Triangle is
equal to the Sum of the Squares of the other two sides" on the basis of
its meaning.

Or, is that NOT a analytic expression, and thus, most of mathematics is
not dispite your "stipuation".

[Richard Damon]

And you keep lying about it.

Since P(P) NEVER calls another copy of P, the fact that the trace shows
this happening PROVES it is not a correct trace, unless you are going to
admit that H mearly calls its input (at least when called by P).

Once P calls H, the ONLY code that is executed (if H is a simulator) is
the code of H, NEVER do we get back to P.

Note, then you need to explain how it is still a actual computation when
the outer H behaves differently (since the behavior of a computaiton is
ONLY a function of its parameters, so is can't know that it is being
called by P).

[Richard Damon]

On 5/18/22 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/18/2022 10:31 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:212352
>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55         push ebp      // enter P
>>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
>>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
>>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55         push ebp      // enter P
>>
>> This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about.
>> The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's
>> something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and
>> entering a simulator.
>>
>
> HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT H PERFORMS A PURE SIMULATION
> OF ITS INPUT THUS HAS NO BEHAVIOR THAT CAN HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE
> BEHAVIOR OF ITS INPUT THUS NO NEED TO SEE ITS HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF
> EXECUTION TRACE ???

The the trace needs to just stop at the call to H, but then you don't
have anything to point at to "prove" your statement.

[Richard Damon]

And the trace starts to LIE right here unless H actually calls P

> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55         push ebp      // enter P
> ...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
> ...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
> ...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
> with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
> recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

But H is seeing things, since it is looking at an incorrect trace,
unless the H that P called did just call P, then H is proven to NOT be a
computation as H(P,P) does different things at different times.

[olcott]

Then you did not meet my challenge.

>
>
> The fact that I don't know which one doesn't make the arguement invalid,
> it points out that there is a limit to knowledge.
>
> A second example.
>
> Godel sentence G is True.
>
> You may not accept that it is True, but it is. To quote from one of your
> favorite sources:
>

G is not true in F the same way and for the same reason that the Liar
Paradox is not true.

When we move outside of self-contradiction into Tarski's meta-theory it
is true that the liar paradox is not true in Tarski's theory.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>
> The Gödel sentence is designed to refer, indirectly, to itself. The
> sentence states that, when a particular sequence of steps is used to
> construct another sentence, that constructed sentence will not be
> provable in F. However, the sequence of steps is such that the
> constructed sentence turns out to be GF itself. In this way, the Gödel
> sentence GF indirectly states its own unprovability within F (Smith
> 2007, p. 135).
>

Exactly the same as Tarski.

It is NOT a truth bearer.

>
>>
>> We know that logic sentences are true or false on the basis of the
>> definition of logic sentence.
>
> Right, so G needs to be either True of False, and if it is False, then
> we can prove it, making it True.
>

That is exact the same as saying that the liar paradox is true or false,
it is actually neither.

>>
>>
>>> Unless you are defining that "untrue or untrue" is True, you have a
>>> problem (and if yoy do, you still have a proble).
>>
>>
>

[olcott]

Math a stipulated to be in the body of analytical statements the same
way that a dog is stipulated to be an animal.

> You need to decide, either you remove Mathematics from Analytical or you
> remove Provable from Analytically True.
>

Not at all. This is where logic diverges form correct reasoning.
Cannot possibly be proved = untrue.

>>
>>> As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic",
>>> or is it more emperical.
>>>
>>
>> It is stipulated that math and logic are purely analytical.
>
> Then there exists analytical statements that are True but not Provable.
>
> That is PROVEN.

Unprovable in F means untrue in F.
Remove the self-contradiction then we get provable and true.

>
>>
>>> Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares
>>> of the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
>>> doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
>>> emperical truth show to be true because it just works.
>>>
>>
>> Empirical means that you must be able to taste, touch, smell, or hear it.
>
> Then read section 2.1, Mathematics, by "Thought" can "verify" concepts
> in the domain that can not be "Proven" by mean analytic proof.

If math contradicts its philosophical foundation then math is wrong.

>
> You either need to consider that "Thought" as a sense, or admit that not
> all Analytic Statements are provable.
>

In the same way I will take my pet office building for a walk.

>>
>>> Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper
>>> to analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections
>>>>>> that x has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the
>>>>>> True(x) is based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are
>>>>>> verified or fail verification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY
>>>>> arguement based on it becomes UNSOND.
>>>>
>>>> I think that we agree on this.
>>>
>>> So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?
>>
>> Unproven means unsound. Sound requires proven.
>
> You just showed that you don't know the meaning.
>

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/

Deductive inference is a kind of proof.

> CLAIMING something to be True without proof is Unsound, but an Unproven
> fact is mearly unknown.
>

impossisble to prove = untrue.

> The Collbatz conjuecture is Unknown as to its Truth, but we KNOW that it
> must be either True of False.
>
> The Collbatz Conjecture is NOT "Unsound", because it doesn't assert that
> it IS true, just believed to be.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an assertion, not an argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of
>>>>>>> the excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only
>>>>>>> true and false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Richard Damon]

Sort of, and just as True.

But it IS, that or Mathematics isn't Analytical, since the actual Godel
Sentence is merely about the existence of some finite set of natural
numbers, which, by definition, either exists or it doesn't.

>
>>
>>>
>>> We know that logic sentences are true or false on the basis of the
>>> definition of logic sentence.
>>
>> Right, so G needs to be either True of False, and if it is False, then
>> we can prove it, making it True.
>>
>
> That is exact the same as saying that the liar paradox is true or false,
> it is actually neither.

Nope, just shows you don't know what the actual Godel G statement is.

[Richard Damon]

Then you have to accept that some Analytical Statements are True but not
Provable,

>
>> You need to decide, either you remove Mathematics from Analytical or
>> you remove Provable from Analytically True.
>>
>
> Not at all. This is where logic diverges form correct reasoning.
> Cannot possibly be proved = untrue.

I think all you have done is proved that your "Correct Reasoning" is
incorrect.

>
>>>
>>>> As pointed out, in part, the question is "Is Mathematics Analytic",
>>>> or is it more emperical.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is stipulated that math and logic are purely analytical.
>>
>> Then there exists analytical statements that are True but not Provable.
>>
>> That is PROVEN.
>
> Unprovable in F means untrue in F.
> Remove the self-contradiction then we get provable and true.

Nope, not if F can support enough Mathematics.

Your logic system is obviously now inconsistent.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Can "The Square of the Hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares
>>>> of the other two sides", be actually thought of as a ANALYTIC proof,
>>>> doesn't it truth come out of the MEANING of the words, or is it an
>>>> emperical truth show to be true because it just works.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Empirical means that you must be able to taste, touch, smell, or hear
>>> it.
>>
>> Then read section 2.1, Mathematics, by "Thought" can "verify" concepts
>> in the domain that can not be "Proven" by mean analytic proof.
>
> If math contradicts its philosophical foundation then math is wrong.

Go ahead, announce you new logic idea, and point out that to accept it
you need to throw out the centuries of development of mathematics
because it must all be wrong.

I think you may be able to hear the crickets after that.

>
>>
>> You either need to consider that "Thought" as a sense, or admit that
>> not all Analytic Statements are provable.
>>
>
> In the same way I will take my pet office building for a walk.

Yes, do that, it makes as much sense as your other statements.

>
>>>
>>>> Once you do that, then all the pesky mathematical problems disapper
>>>> to analytics, because they have been moved outside the domain.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∴ True(x) only exists on the basis of the semantic connections
>>>>>>> that x has or fails to have. This is another way of saying the
>>>>>>> True(x) is based on Provable(x) as these semantic connections are
>>>>>>> verified or fail verification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unproven, and thus by its own definition, not True, and ANY
>>>>>> arguement based on it becomes UNSOND.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that we agree on this.
>>>>
>>>> So, you agree that your statement is UNSOUND?
>>>
>>> Unproven means unsound. Sound requires proven.
>>
>> You just showed that you don't know the meaning.
>>
>
> 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/
>
> Deductive inference is a kind of proof.

So, How is "Unproven" the same an "Unsound"?

You are making a category error.

UNSOUND is a property of an ARGUEMENT.

PROVEN/UNPROVEN is a propery of a statement/preposition.

>
>> CLAIMING something to be True without proof is Unsound, but an
>> Unproven fact is mearly unknown.
>>
>
> impossisble to prove = untrue.

PROVE IT.

If you can't, your statement is UNTRUE.

I have asked you several times this question. I will take you lack of
presenting an actual proof as evidence that you don't have one, and thus
your repeaating of that statement is just you claiming something, that
by your own rules is untrue, which make you an admitted LIAR.

[Ben]

Ah, "if". So you admit that you are tracing an H this is not the one
you have been describing, or are you just trying to justify editing the
trace? You should be clear on this point.

> BECAUSE OF THIS THE INSISTENCE ON SEEING THE HUNDREDS OF
> PAGES OF THE EXECUTION TRACE OF H OR THE SOURCE-CODE OF H
> IS A JACKASS MOVE THAT IS ONLY PLAYING HEAD GAMES.

Yes, I want to see a trace of the function you claim have, not a made up
edited trace, or a trace of some other function altogether. Though what
I really want if fo you to be brave enough to publish H.

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/18/2022 10:31 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
>>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
>>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>>> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about.
>> The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's
>> something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and
>> entering a simulator.
>
> HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT H PERFORMS A PURE SIMULATION
> OF ITS INPUT THUS HAS NO BEHAVIOR THAT CAN HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE
> BEHAVIOR OF ITS INPUT THUS NO NEED TO SEE ITS HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF
> EXECUTION TRACE ???

You can tell me that as often as you like. I will repeat -- your trace
is at best deceptive by omission, at worst a deliberate lie being the
trace of a function entirely unlike the one you pretend. We can can't
tell which until you publish H, which will never happen.

[olcott]

THE TRACE OF H IS IRRELEVANT, WHAT ARE YOU STUPID?

>> BECAUSE OF THIS THE INSISTENCE ON SEEING THE HUNDREDS OF
>> PAGES OF THE EXECUTION TRACE OF H OR THE SOURCE-CODE OF H
>> IS A JACKASS MOVE THAT IS ONLY PLAYING HEAD GAMES.
>
> Yes, I want to see a trace of the function you claim have,

IF YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE TRACE THAT H PRODUCES THAT H CORRECTLY
DECIDES ITS INPUT YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT ANYWHERE IN THE BALLPARK SMART
ENOUGH TO CORRECTLY ANALYZE MY WORK.

I AM MUCH MORE APT TO BELIEVE DISHONEST RATHER THAN STUPID.

> not a made up
> edited trace, or a trace of some other function altogether. Though what
> I really want if fo you to be brave enough to publish H.
>

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TRACE OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) THAT H ACTUALLY PRODUCES.

[Richard Damon]

Why? Since the code of H is PART of P, since it is called by it.

Thus the COMPUTAION of P includes ALL the code of H as part of it, H
needs to take it into account.

>
>>> BECAUSE OF THIS THE INSISTENCE ON SEEING THE HUNDREDS OF
>>> PAGES OF THE EXECUTION TRACE OF H OR THE SOURCE-CODE OF H
>>> IS A JACKASS MOVE THAT IS ONLY PLAYING HEAD GAMES.
>>
>> Yes, I want to see a trace of the function you claim have,
>
> IF YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE TRACE THAT H PRODUCES THAT H CORRECTLY
> DECIDES ITS INPUT YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT ANYWHERE IN THE BALLPARK SMART
> ENOUGH TO CORRECTLY ANALYZE MY WORK.
>
> I AM MUCH MORE APT TO BELIEVE DISHONEST RATHER THAN STUPID.

It has been pointed out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for that trace to actually
be correct.

How can you make a valid deduction from an incorrect trace.

>
>> not a made up
>> edited trace, or a trace of some other function altogether.  Though what
>> I really want if fo you to be brave enough to publish H.
>>
>
> THIS IS THE ACTUAL TRACE OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) THAT H ACTUALLY PRODUCES.
>

Then you H is broken (or a liar) as H can not just call its input and
also be a simulator and also be an actual computation.

Thus either your H is a liar, or YOU are. (actually, either way you are
the liar as you made H and are certifying that it is correct).

[olcott]

I only want to treat you fairly and with honesty. Now that you have
finally demonstrated excellent programming skills I finally have a basis
to know a key aspect of your technical skills that were never previously
confirmed.

Anyone with the skills that you demonstrated that never saw the x86
language ever before would be able to correctly analyze the execution
trace of the input to H(P,P) and confirm that it is correct.

[Malcolm McLean]

P calls H. But H, as you have described it, doesn't call P. It emulates it.
But the trace seems to show a call. The infinite cycle detector, as you
have described it is based on a call.

So it's unclear what is going on. And it turns out that the traces are edited.
So is the second part of the trace the output of the emulated emulator?

That seems the best explanation, but we can't be sure that this is going on.

[Ben]

Another question you won't answer. What are you hiding?

We already know that H is not deciding the halting instance that it
should (i.e. whether the call P(P) halts or not) but it also seems you
are being deceptive about what H is really doing.

[olcott]

It is a little annoying that I have to say this 150 times and people
can't remember that I said it even once. I take this as head games.
H(P,P) emulates its input that calls H(P,P) that emulates its input.

Because H only emulates the first 7 instructions of its input H cannot
possibly have any effect on the behavior of this input. This means that
there is no need to see the 237 pages of the execution trace of H.

Furthermore we can easily verify that these first 7 instructions of P
are emulated correctly because the execution trace provided by H exactly
matches the behavior specified by these first 7 instructions of P.

> And it turns out that the traces are edited.

I removed some of the extraneous debug information about the memory
allocation. A normal execution trace would not show this. I changed the
source-code so that it doesn't display this.

My purpose in providing the memory allocation information was to prove
that there really are several independent processes. H(P,P) emulating
its input that calls H(P,P) that emulates its input.

> So is the second part of the trace the output of the emulated emulator?
>

The first 7 lines are emulated by the emulator, the second 7 lines are
emulated by the emulated emulator.

> That seems the best explanation, but we can't be sure that this is going on.

[olcott]

A confusing mess of ridiculously complex and totally irrelevant
information that you have consistently proven incapable of comprehending.

>
> We already know that H is not deciding the halting instance that it
> should (i.e. whether the call P(P) halts or not) but it also seems you
> are being deceptive about what H is really doing.
>

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P

...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

[Richard Damon]

But that isn't what the trace shows. The second trace of P is NOT what
actually happens.

>
> Because H only emulates the first 7 instructions of its input H cannot
> possibly have any effect on the behavior of this input. This means that
> there is no need to see the 237 pages of the execution trace of H.
>

But it DOES have inpact on the copy of P that calls it, and because H
needes

> Furthermore we can easily verify that these first 7 instructions of P
> are emulated correctly because the execution trace provided by H exactly
> matches the behavior specified by these first 7 instructions of P.

Except that you don't correctly emulate the REST of P, which includes
the code of H. The "copy" of H that P calls is part of the execution
history of the Program P.

>
>> And it turns out that the traces are edited.
>
> I removed some of the extraneous debug information about the memory
> allocation. A normal execution trace would not show this. I changed the
> source-code so that it doesn't display this.

Maybe it is H that edits it itself. Still says the trace is NOT a trace
of the execution path of the PROGRAM P.

"Subroutine" P is not a computation by itself. The bytes you are calling
the "representation" of P is not comp[ete. This just shows that you are
just lying about following the proof.

>
> My purpose in providing the memory allocation information was to prove
> that there really are several independent processes. H(P,P) emulating
> its input that calls H(P,P) that emulates its input.

But you don't show the ACTUAL execution trace of what the program P
does, which after P calls H is to start emulating the input that P gave
to the function H. Remember, the PROGRAM P, includes as part of its code
ALL the code that would be executed if you directly execute P as an
independent program, which includes all of H, and anything H uses.

>
>> So is the second part of the trace the output of the emulated emulator?
>>
>
> The first 7 lines are emulated by the emulator, the second 7 lines are
> emulated by the emulated emulator.

SO NOT a trace of the emulation of the P that the top level H is
deciding on.

THAT is the error. The transformation of an emulation of an emulator to
the emulation of the emulated code is ONLY valid for unconditional
emulation, which H does not do.

So, that transformation is an INVALID logical operation, and thus makes
your whole arguemet INCORRECT.


My guess (and will admit that it is only a guess) is that your H doesn't
actually have the code to emulate, but that H is just an API into your
overall simulation system, which is INCAPABLE of actually emulating its
emulation of the input (and thus switches to showing the trace of the
code being emulated by the emulator and not the emulation of that code
(with its conditionals to abort on what it INCORRECT decides in infinite
recursion). This make your H NOT actually meeting the requirements of a
Computation that is the equivalent of a Turing Machine.

[Richard Damon]

The LIE starts here.

NO CPU will go to address 00001352 as a result of a call 000011A2.

Thus, this is NOT a correct trace.

Since you are basing you analysis on a FALSE trace, your results are
invalid.

You are just proving that your setup is BROKEN.

> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55         push ebp      // enter P
> ...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
> ...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
> ...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
> with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
> recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.
>

Nope, please provide a reference to this that includes handling a
CONDITIONAL emulation in the loop.

You are just proving that your knowledge of this sort of thing is abismal

[Ben]

You'll have to make it public one day, unless chatting on here is your
only objective. No one will take deceptively edited traces as evidence
of anything but you being shifty, and since you've already abandoned any
pretence at talking about the halting problem, all you have is this
faked-up trace of the simulation.

H(P,P) == false is wrong about the halting of P(P) and the trace does
not back-up what you say your H is doing. There's nothing left here.

But there's always the TM emulator... How's that coming along?

[olcott]

ANYONE WITH SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE THAT IS NOT A GOD DAMNED
LIAR KNOWS THAT I ALREADY TOTALLY PROVED MY POINT THAT H(P,P)==0 IS
CORRECT.

...[0000137f][00102292][00001384] e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352
...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P
...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P

...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

...[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50 push eax
...[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 //
"Input_Halts = "
---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
Input_Halts = 0
...[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
...[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
...[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d pop ebp
...[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3 ret
Number_of_User_Instructions(1)

Number of Instructions Executed(15892) = 237 pages

> No one will take deceptively edited traces as evidence
> of anything but you being shifty, and since you've already abandoned any
> pretence at talking about the halting problem, all you have is this
> faked-up trace of the simulation.

ANYONE WITH SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE THAT IS NOT A GOD DAMNED
LIAR KNOWS THAT I ALREADY TOTALLY PROVED MY POINT THAT H(P,P)==0 IS
CORRECT.

ONE CAN VERIFY THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE IS CORRECT ON THE BASIS THAT THE
EXECUTION TRACE PROVIDED CORRESPONDS TO THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF H(P,P)
EMULATING ITS INPUT CALLING H(P,P) THAT EMULATES ITS INPUT.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU DON'T SEE THIS.

> H(P,P) == false is wrong about the halting of P(P) and the trace does
> not back-up what you say your H is doing. There's nothing left here.
>
> But there's always the TM emulator... How's that coming along?
>

There are about two lines of code that are out-of-place. I have been ill
and had other issues that I had to deal with.

[Richard Damon]

But the trace is false, so the application of the rule is incorrect.

H sees P calling H which CONDITIONALLY simulates P which calls H

The CONDITIONAL simulation break your "rule"

FAIL

>
> ...[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
> ...[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50         push eax
> ...[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 //
> "Input_Halts = "
> ---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
> Input_Halts = 0
> ...[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
> ...[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
> ...[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d         pop ebp
> ...[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3         ret
> Number_of_User_Instructions(1)
> Number of Instructions Executed(15892) = 237 pages
>
>
>> No one will take deceptively edited traces as evidence
>> of anything but you being shifty, and since you've already abandoned any
>> pretence at talking about the halting problem, all you have is this
>> faked-up trace of the simulation.
>
> ANYONE WITH SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE THAT IS NOT A GOD DAMNED
> LIAR KNOWS THAT I ALREADY TOTALLY PROVED MY POINT THAT H(P,P)==0 IS
> CORRECT.

Nope, you have just proved that YOU are INCOMPETENT and a LIAR.

H(P,P) == 0 can NOT be correct if H is a Halting Decider.

Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but not a Halting Decider.

Your arguement that it can't use the actual defintion is just support of
the Theorem. If you can't ask the question, you can't answer it correctly.

>
> ONE CAN VERIFY THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE IS CORRECT ON THE BASIS THAT THE
> EXECUTION TRACE PROVIDED CORRESPONDS TO THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF H(P,P)
> EMULATING ITS INPUT CALLING H(P,P) THAT EMULATES ITS INPUT.

But the call to H needs to trace H. And, unless H actually calls P (and
thus losing the ability to 'abort' it) the 'Second' round in P never
actualy occurs as an exectution of P, it is all just a simulation
(inside the simulation) of P

>
> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU DON'T SEE THIS.

Me either, you are dumber than an ox.

You don't get to change the rules, doing so just proves your ignorance
of how logic works. Shows how pitiful is your whole idea.

[olcott]

THE EXECUTION TRACE OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) CORRESPONDS TO

THE BEHAVIOR SPECIFIED BY THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF P

WHERE H(P,P) CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT

THAT CALLS H(P,P) THAT CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT

[Python]

Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 2:19 PM, Ben wrote:

...

>> But there's always the TM emulator...  How's that coming along?
>>
>
> There are about two lines of code that are out-of-place. I have been ill
> and had other issues that I had to deal with.

It should have taken four hours, remember?

You are a joke, a kook, a pretender.

[Richard Damon]

NOPE, Becaue P calls H, but the trace doesn't show anything in H.

H is defined to EMULATE its input, not call it.

>
> WHERE H(P,P) CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT
>
> THAT CALLS H(P,P) THAT CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT

So, why don't we see the EMULATION of H EMULATING P?

Just shows you are LYING, and presenting a FALSE trace.

[olcott]

I have been sick from chemotherapy.
I almost had to go the the hospital again last night.
I had to spend two days in the hospital three weeks ago.
My design scales much better than Ben's design.
Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitions.
My design takes log2(N) for state transitions.

[Richard Damon]

On 5/19/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 4:38 PM, Python wrote:
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2022 2:19 PM, Ben wrote:
>> ...
>>>> But there's always the TM emulator...  How's that coming along?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are about two lines of code that are out-of-place. I have been
>>> ill and had other issues that I had to deal with.
>>
>> It should have taken four hours, remember?
>>
>> You are a joke, a kook, a pretender.
>>
>
> I have been sick from chemotherapy.
> I almost had to go the the hospital again last night.
> I had to spend two days in the hospital three weeks ago.
> My design scales much better than Ben's design.
> Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitions.
> My design takes log2(N) for state transitions.
>

My design is O(1) for state transitions, so it scales even better. (Bit
more overhead on reading in the design, but is O(1) for running)

[olcott]

Normally for a DFA one always has O(1) because the current input and
current state are in a fully populated matrix. When the current state,
current input are in a sparse matrix a fully populated matrix wastes too
mach space. In this case O log2(N) is the best that we can do. I had to
do this for my DFA based OCR system because the current input was a
short list of 24-bit pixels.

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

> My design scales much better than Ben's design.

You can't possibly know. For one thing, I have written more than one
interpreter since you suggested you were going to do this.

> Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitions.

No.

> My design takes log2(N) for state transitions.

There is no point in talking about N without saying what N is. From
what you've posted, I would imagine your lookup is O(log(mn)) where n is
the number of states and m is the size of the tape alphabet.

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

>> H(P,P) == false is wrong about the halting of P(P) and the trace does
>> not back-up what you say your H is doing. There's nothing left here.
>> But there's always the TM emulator... How's that coming along?
>>
>
> There are about two lines of code that are out-of-place. I have been
> ill and had other issues that I had to deal with.

So maybe another month or so and you can start to write a parity
checking TM? Those out-of-place lines can be a bugger to find ;-)

[olcott]

On 5/19/2022 7:13 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> My design scales much better than Ben's design.
>
> You can't possibly know. For one thing, I have written more than one
> interpreter since you suggested you were going to do this.
>
>> Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitions.
>
> No.
>
>> My design takes log2(N) for state transitions.
>
> There is no point in talking about N without saying what N is. From
> what you've posted, I would imagine your lookup is O(log(mn)) where n is
> the number of states and m is the size of the tape alphabet.
>

Actually it is far less than that.
It is the exactly same thing as my OCR DFA.
The average length of the list of state + input pairs.

With 24 million pixels and hundreds of thousands of states N tended to
be about 20---> O log2(20).

To put this in more conventional terms N is the average number of
outward paths from each node.

[olcott]

On 5/19/2022 7:23 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong about the halting of P(P) and the trace does
>>> not back-up what you say your H is doing. There's nothing left here.
>>> But there's always the TM emulator... How's that coming along?
>>>
>>
>> There are about two lines of code that are out-of-place. I have been
>> ill and had other issues that I had to deal with.
>
> So maybe another month or so and you can start to write a parity
> checking TM? Those out-of-place lines can be a bugger to find ;-)
>

I planned on having this done by now. The problem seems to be that the
specification of the state transition function is not precise enough.

A transition rule of a Turing machine has the following form
δ(p, X) = (q, Y, L).

pXYqL
This means that from state p, on reading the symbol X on the tape,
the machine moves to state q,
replaces X with Y and
moves the tape head to the left.

void move_left(); // Tape_Head--; Left.push_back(0); as needed
void move_right(); // Tape_Head++; Left.push_back(0); as needed
void Write(tape_element Y){ this->operator[](Tape_Head) = Y; };
tape_element Read() { return this->operator[](Tape_Head); };

For example, the quintuple 'SCcsm' is executed by the machine:
If it is in state 'S' and is reading the symbol 'C' on the tape then
(a) make a transition to state 's'.
(b) overwrite the symbol 'C' on the tape with the symbol 'c'.
(c) move the tape reading head one symbol to the left or right
according to whether 'm' is 'l' or 'r'.

When I implement it exactly as specified the behavior of my TM on the
Paren.tm is not the same as the original TM.exe.

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/19/2022 7:13 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> My design scales much better than Ben's design.
>> You can't possibly know. For one thing, I have written more than one
>> interpreter since you suggested you were going to do this.
>>
>>> Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitions.
>> No.
>>
>>> My design takes log2(N) for state transitions.
>> There is no point in talking about N without saying what N is.

What is N?

>> From what you've posted, I would imagine your lookup is O(log(mn))
>> where n is the number of states and m is the size of the tape
>> alphabet.
>
> Actually it is far less than that.

Then you've changed the design. Fair enough.

> It is the exactly same thing as my OCR DFA.

The software that was going to make you millions? I remember that. How
many copies did you sell in the end?

> The average length of the list of state + input pairs.

How is that length not O(mn)? Sounds like the design you suggested
before. The lookup (using std::set) would be O(log(mn)).

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/19/2022 7:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong about the halting of P(P) and the trace does
>>>> not back-up what you say your H is doing. There's nothing left here.
>>>> But there's always the TM emulator... How's that coming along?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are about two lines of code that are out-of-place. I have been
>>> ill and had other issues that I had to deal with.
>>
>> So maybe another month or so and you can start to write a parity
>> checking TM? Those out-of-place lines can be a bugger to find ;-)
>
> I planned on having this done by now. The problem seems to be that the
> specification of the state transition function is not precise enough.

Unlikely.

> A transition rule of a Turing machine has the following form
> δ(p, X) = (q, Y, L).
>
> pXYqL
> This means that from state p, on reading the symbol X on the tape,
> the machine moves to state q,
> replaces X with Y and
> moves the tape head to the left.
>
> void move_left(); // Tape_Head--; Left.push_back(0); as needed
> void move_right(); // Tape_Head++; Left.push_back(0); as needed
> void Write(tape_element Y){ this->operator[](Tape_Head) = Y; };
> tape_element Read() { return this->operator[](Tape_Head); };
>
> For example, the quintuple 'SCcsm' is executed by the machine:
> If it is in state 'S' and is reading the symbol 'C' on the tape then
> (a) make a transition to state 's'.
> (b) overwrite the symbol 'C' on the tape with the symbol 'c'.
> (c) move the tape reading head one symbol to the left or right
> according to whether 'm' is 'l' or 'r'.
>
> When I implement it exactly as specified the behavior of my TM on the
> Paren.tm is not the same as the original TM.exe.

It's called a bug. I am amazed that your reaction to the fact that your
program does not do what it should is that the specification is wrong.
It's just a common or garden bug.

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

> ONE CAN VERIFY THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE IS CORRECT ON THE BASIS THAT
> THE EXECUTION TRACE OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) CORRESPONDS TO
> THE BEHAVIOR SPECIFIED BY THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF P
> WHERE H(P,P) CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT
> THAT CALLS H(P,P) THAT CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT

Rather than shouting, you could either publish an honest, un-edited
execution trace, or you could publish H itself (yes, an extraordinary
suggestion!). Until you do, you have nothing but a fake trace and an H
that does not decide the halting of the key computation.

[Richard Damon]

But it is easy to convert the sparce matrix into a dense one with a
simple mapping layer, and if you keep the inverse map around it is still
simple to make your output (and keep even that O(1))

The other option is to use a hash table to find entries.

Since for any case that matters, the run time vastly outweighs the time
to read the description, spending just a bit up front to optimize the
state transitions is likely worth it.

And, if you are limiting your states and symbols to the basic character
set, even the sparce table isn't that big for a modern computer (It
likely still fits in L1 cache)

[Richard Damon]

Are you remembering to lookup ALL the data for the transition and save
it before changing any of the data. The sequence should be:

Find the rule
save next_state, new_symbol, tape_direction
update state = next_state; write new_sybol to the tape; move the tape

Also, shouldn't move right to a Right.push_back(0), not a Left.push_back(0)

[olcott]

On 5/19/2022 7:40 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/19/2022 7:13 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> My design scales much better than Ben's design.
>>> You can't possibly know. For one thing, I have written more than one
>>> interpreter since you suggested you were going to do this.
>>>
>>>> Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitions.
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> My design takes log2(N) for state transitions.
>>> There is no point in talking about N without saying what N is.
>
> What is N?
>
>>> From what you've posted, I would imagine your lookup is O(log(mn))
>>> where n is the number of states and m is the size of the tape
>>> alphabet.
>>
>> Actually it is far less than that.
>
> Then you've changed the design. Fair enough.
>
>> It is the exactly same thing as my OCR DFA.
>
> The software that was going to make you millions? I remember that. How
> many copies did you sell in the end?
>
>> The average length of the list of state + input pairs.
>
> How is that length not O(mn)? Sounds like the design you suggested
> before. The lookup (using std::set) would be O(log(mn)).
>

That design would be O number of log2(unique state + input pairs)
Not anywhere near the number of possible inputs, only the ones that are
actually used per state.

(0((0R
(0)A1L
(0AA0R
(0 2L
(1(A0R
(1AA1L
(1 NR Prather has 0 instead of R
(2((NR Prather has 0 instead of R
(2AA2L
(N--NR Never used. Its existence forces N to be a non-final state.
(2 YR
[((()))

O log2(11)

My OCR DFA has far fewer than this: O log2(20)

[Ben]

olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/19/2022 7:40 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2022 7:13 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> My design scales much better than Ben's design.
>>>> You can't possibly know. For one thing, I have written more than one
>>>> interpreter since you suggested you were going to do this.
>>>>
>>>>> Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitions.
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> My design takes log2(N) for state transitions.
>>>> There is no point in talking about N without saying what N is.
>> What is N?
>>
>>>> From what you've posted, I would imagine your lookup is O(log(mn))
>>>> where n is the number of states and m is the size of the tape
>>>> alphabet.
>>>
>>> Actually it is far less than that.
>> Then you've changed the design. Fair enough.
>>
>>> It is the exactly same thing as my OCR DFA.
>> The software that was going to make you millions? I remember that. How
>> many copies did you sell in the end?

How many? None?

>>> The average length of the list of state + input pairs.
>> How is that length not O(mn)? Sounds like the design you suggested
>> before. The lookup (using std::set) would be O(log(mn)).
>
> That design would be O number of log2(unique state + input pairs)

Let's just add this to the list, OK?

[olcott]

I do all of the steps in the exact order that they are specified and it
does not work. The problem is that the spec is vague on which input
symbol is required for the state transition.

The second spec says transition specifies this:
Quintuple QT(current_state->state, Tape.Read());
and that does not work.

[Ben]

I see nothing vague about it. δ(p, X) = (q, Y, L) means that in state
p, with X at the tape head, replace the X with Y, move the head left
and enter state q.

> The second spec says transition specifies this:
> Quintuple QT(current_state->state, Tape.Read());
> and that does not work.

People will help you debug the code if you post it. And if you think
there is something vague, ask for clarification.

The code fragment you posted some while back was all wrong, but I
imagine you've moved on from that now.

[olcott]

That does not actually work.

>> The second spec says transition specifies this:
>> Quintuple QT(current_state->state, Tape.Read());
>> and that does not work.
>
> People will help you debug the code if you post it. And if you think
> there is something vague, ask for clarification.
>

I want to do this only my own.

> The code fragment you posted some while back was all wrong, but I
> imagine you've moved on from that now.
>


--

[Python]

Peter Olcott wrote:
...

> I do all of the steps in the exact order that they are specified and it
> does not work. The problem is that the spec is vague on which input
> symbol is required for the state transition.

You may consider that you are too dumb for this task. Just saying.

What do you think?

[olcott]

Objectively I am a genius.

[Richard Damon]

WHY? That is what the line means.

[Richard Damon]

On 5/19/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> ...
>>> I do all of the steps in the exact order that they are specified and
>>> it does not work. The problem is that the spec is vague on which
>>> input symbol is required for the state transition.
>>
>> You may consider that you are too dumb for this task. Just saying.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> Objectively I am a genius.
>

Only by your logic, which has been proved faulty.

[Python]

Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 9:21 PM, Python wrote:
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> ...
>>> I do all of the steps in the exact order that they are specified and
>>> it does not work. The problem is that the spec is vague on which
>>> input symbol is required for the state transition.
>>
>> You may consider that you are too dumb for this task. Just saying.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> Objectively I am a genius.
>

Peter, Peter, Peter, ... You just failed miserabily on a routine
exercise (not exam!) for graduate students, come on!

[olcott]

I have been ill, nitwit.