[continued from previous message]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption that derives the category error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from their finite string inputs to an accept state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or reject state on the basis that this input finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Repeat of previously refuted point where you explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreed with the refutation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2025 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 10/20/2025 10:45 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> And it is a semantic tautology that a finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>> description of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Turing machine is stipulated to specify all semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> >> described machine, including whether it halts when
>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Yes that is all correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This means you agree that the finite string input to
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD), which is the description of machine DD and
>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore specifies all semantic properties of that machine,
>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies halting behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is a perfectly correct statement of the
>>>>>>>>>>> halting problems false assumption
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that the input to HHH(DD) specifies halting behavior
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *No stupid exactly the opposite of that*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of DD simulated by HHH according to
>>>>>>>>> the semantics of its specification language C, x86,
>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine description, is the ultimate judge
>>>>>>>>> of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>>>>>> Specifies.
>>>>
>>>> The above point
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And because HHH aborts, DD is *NOT* simulated by HHH according
>>>>>>>> to the semantics of its specification language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therefore there is no basis to judge the behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Was refuted above
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - You must simulate the input **exactly as written**,
>>>>>>> step by step, without any external reasoning,
>>>>>>> assumptions, or guesses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - **Do not analyze, infer, or speculate**; only describe
>>>>>>> what the simulation observes in execution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Report only the behavior that occurs in the simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Always follow the priority rules exactly:
>>>>>>> 1. (a) Detect non-terminating behavior → abort
>>>>>>> simulation and return 0.
>>>>>>> 2. (b) Return statement reached → return 1.
>>>>>>> 3. (c) Neither (a) nor (b) → return -1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Do not include any commentary about halting
>>>>>>> problem, contradictions, or theoretical reasoning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - All output must be in terms of simulation observations only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and it is verified that it did this by meeting
>>>>>>> criteria (a) then every LLM system agrees that
>>>>>>> HHH is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False.
>>>>>> 1) DD halts so there is no non-terminating behavior to detect.
>>>>>> 2) An aborted simulation is an incorrect simulation. This is
>>>>>> proven true by the meaning of the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have brain damage that prevents you
>>>>> from paying complete attention?
>>>>>
>>>>> The behavior of DD simulated by HHH according to
>>>>> the semantics of its specification language C, x86,
>>>>> Turing Machine description, is the ultimate judge
>>>>> of the behavior
>>>>>
>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>> *that the input* (not any damn thing else)
>>>>> Specifies.
>>>>
>>>> Repeat of previously refuted point (see above).
>>>>
>>>
>>> No one has ever refuted me you lying Jackass.
>>
>> Read the whole post, *then* respond.
>>
>>>
>>>> This counts as less than no rebuttal and is therefore you admission
>>>> that the point it was posted in response to:
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> 1) DD halts so there is no non-terminating behavior to detect.
>
> If you weren't so stupid you would
> have noticed that I have proved this
> does not make one damn difference
> fifty times now.
>
> The halt decider
i.e. a machine that computes the following mapping:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
> is only supposed to report
> on the behavior that its input specifies.
>
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
> REPORTS ON THE BEHAVIOR THAT ITS INPUT SPECIFIES
>
And the input to HHH(DD), i.e. finite string DD, is the description of
machine DD (i.e. ) and therefore stipulated to specify all semantic
properties of machine DD including that it halts when executed directly.
Therefore the input to HHH(DD) specifies halting behavior.
>>>> 2) An aborted simulation is an incorrect simulation. This is proven
>>>> true by the meaning of the words.
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> As well as the original refutation of that point:
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>> And because HHH aborts, DD is *NOT* simulated by HHH according to
>>>> the semantics of its specification language.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore there is no basis to judge the behavior.
>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Are both *CORRECT*.
>>
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
