[continued from previous message]
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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
>>> 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*.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
