XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/5/2025 11:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-05, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/5/2025 1:01 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-05, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>> The whole point is that D simulated by H   
   >>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated   
   >>>>>> "return" statement no matter what H does.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *That is the definition of non-halting input*   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, anyway, there you go; that's how the "D simulated by H" is the   
   >>> same halting D as the directly executed one.   
   >>   
   >> The whole point is that D simulated by H   
   >> cannot possibly reach its own simulated   
   >> "return" statement no matter what H does.   
   >>   
   >> The semantic halting property of the input   
   >> to H(D) has been proven to be non-halting.   
   >   
   > So you are saying that no simulating decider could ever be wrong about   
   > its D-like diagonal input case, if it conducts an incomplete (but   
   > otherwise correct) simulation of its input and then returns false for   
   > any reason whatsoever (such as "if the input is taking more than three   
   > steps, it must be nonterminating").   
   >   
      
   Boy is that an intentionally deceptive and moronically   
   stupid paraphrase of what I have been saying for years.   
   Here is the essence of what I am proposing some details   
   are left out because with too many details and people get   
   confused.   
      
      
   On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
    > On 2025-11-05, olcott  wrote:   
    >>   
    >> The whole point is that D simulated by H   
    >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated   
    >> "return" statement no matter what H does.   
    >   
    > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.   
    >   
    > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,   
    > that D simulation won't reach the return statement.   
    >   
      
   Kaz finally affirmed the key element of my proof   
   after waiting three years for this.   
      
   This is the key element of my semantic properties of   
   FINITE STRING INPUTS. This is a correction and an   
   elaboration of Rice's theorem semantic properties   
   of programs.   
      
   It seems (and this is not totally verified) that Rice   
   is talking at an abstract level that ignores that Turing   
   machines only take finite string inputs and not other   
   actual Turing Machines. His proof seem seems to assume   
   actual Turing machines as inputs. I correct that error.   
      
   Second Semantic Properties of Finite String Inputs (SPoFSI)   
   are stipulated to be measured on the basis of the behavior   
   of an input P simulated by a decider** H on the basis of   
   H simulating N instructions of input P according to the   
   semantics of the specification language of P.   
      
   ** Technically H is a partial decider or a termination analyzer.   
      
   > And you believe that this will get you written into the history books as   
   > the researcher who showed that the halting problem is all wrong.   
   >   
   > You think that math/CS academia will see it from your perspective and   
   > just agree that when H detaches from D, the question of whether the   
   > abandoned simulation is terminating becomes off-limits (like some sort   
   > "inadmissible evidence")?   
   >   
      
   This whole aspect of what you have been saying has   
   been refuted. When you resume the simulation from   
   the exact same machine state where H.i == 3 then   
   you get the same result. When you do it differently   
   then this then it is not any actual resumption.   
      
   > But at least hopefully you did see that the simulation of D started by H   
   > can be completed, resulting in the same total 11 wsteps as a directly   
   > executed D.  (It just cannot all happen while H is running; H obviously   
   > cannot be the sole driver which pushes the simulation to completion,   
   > since it only pushes the first three steps.)   
   >   
      
   Only when you cheat and do not resume at the exact same   
   machine state where H.i == 3.   
      
   > I and others have not lied or been mistaken in any observations about   
   > what is going on.  Everyone agrees that H returned false after certain   
   > steps that were correct up to that point, that the input didn't reach   
   > its return statement while simulated by H, and that there is an   
   > unfinished simulation that can be continued and has been correctly shown   
   > to reach its return statemnt.   
   >   
      
   Because the same not reached the "return" statement   
   would occur for an infinite number of simulated steps   
   any case of D reaching its "return" instruction is   
   some sort of cheating by not resuming at the exact   
   same machine state where H rejected D.   
      
   > Your whole position is that if a simluation does not reach   
   > termination /while being simulated by the decider/ then it   
   > is correct to call it nonterminating.   
      
   When H correctly predicts that if it simulated D an infinite   
   number of steps that its simulated D would never reach its own   
   simulated "return" statement then H is necessarily correct   
   to reject D on the basis of Semantic Properties of Finite   
   String Inputs (SPoFSI).   
      
   >  (If not absolutely then   
   > at least in situations when the input is the diagonal case).   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)