On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 8:53 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 3:21 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
If you ask a decider to determine if my
sister's name is "Sally" and I don't tell
it who I am then the information contained
in the input is insufficient. This does not
in any way limit computation itself.
The problem is that UTM(D) can work out the fact that
D halts. Why is it that UTM knows that D's sister's
name is Sally, but H does not?
UTM(D) is answering a different question.
(a) It is not providing any answer at all.
Well, of course, by "UTM" we mean a /decider/ that purely simulates: >>>>>
bool UTM(ptr P) {
sim S = sim_create(P);
sim_step_exhaustively(S);
return true;
}
All deciders applied to D are tasked with answering exactly the same >>>>> question.
Pretending that a different question was asked is nonproductive;
the answer will be interpreted to the original question.
All the information needed to answer is positively contained in D.
It is just too complex relative to H.
What The F does UTM decide when DD calls UTM(DD)?
That doesn't happen; DD calls HHH(DD).
A diagonal functon set against UTM, call it DDUTM,
cannot be decided by UTM(DDUTM).
That call simply does not return.
Yes, and the other one does return proving the
whole point that I have been making for three
years that everyone (besides Ben) was too damned
dishonest to acknowledge has been true all along.
What "other one"? Is that referring to HHH(DD)?
HHH(DD) returns; UTM(DDUTM) does not return.
That's four functions; HHH isn't UTM; DD isn't DDUTM.
HHH and DDUTM are unrelated; UTM and DD are unrelated.
On 11/18/2025 10:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 8:53 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 3:21 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
If you ask a decider to determine if my
sister's name is "Sally" and I don't tell
it who I am then the information contained
in the input is insufficient. This does not
in any way limit computation itself.
The problem is that UTM(D) can work out the fact that
D halts. Why is it that UTM knows that D's sister's
name is Sally, but H does not?
UTM(D) is answering a different question.
(a) It is not providing any answer at all.
Well, of course, by "UTM" we mean a /decider/ that purely simulates: >>>>>>
bool UTM(ptr P) {
sim S = sim_create(P);
sim_step_exhaustively(S);
return true;
}
All deciders applied to D are tasked with answering exactly the same >>>>>> question.
Pretending that a different question was asked is nonproductive;
the answer will be interpreted to the original question.
All the information needed to answer is positively contained in D. >>>>>>
It is just too complex relative to H.
What The F does UTM decide when DD calls UTM(DD)?
That doesn't happen; DD calls HHH(DD).
A diagonal functon set against UTM, call it DDUTM,
cannot be decided by UTM(DDUTM).
That call simply does not return.
Yes, and the other one does return proving the
whole point that I have been making for three
years that everyone (besides Ben) was too damned
dishonest to acknowledge has been true all along.
What "other one"? Is that referring to HHH(DD)?
HHH(DD) returns; UTM(DDUTM) does not return.
That's four functions; HHH isn't UTM; DD isn't DDUTM.
HHH and DDUTM are unrelated; UTM and DD are unrelated.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
A simulating termination analyzer that must
abort the interpretation of the above ASCII
string to prevent its own non-termination
has different behavior than a simulating
termination analyzer that need not abort
its interpretation of the above exact same
ASCII string.
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 10:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 8:53 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 3:21 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
If you ask a decider to determine if my
sister's name is "Sally" and I don't tell
it who I am then the information contained
in the input is insufficient. This does not
in any way limit computation itself.
The problem is that UTM(D) can work out the fact that
D halts. Why is it that UTM knows that D's sister's
name is Sally, but H does not?
UTM(D) is answering a different question.
(a) It is not providing any answer at all.
Well, of course, by "UTM" we mean a /decider/ that purely simulates: >>>>>>>
bool UTM(ptr P) {
sim S = sim_create(P);
sim_step_exhaustively(S);
return true;
}
All deciders applied to D are tasked with answering exactly the same >>>>>>> question.
Pretending that a different question was asked is nonproductive; >>>>>>> the answer will be interpreted to the original question.
All the information needed to answer is positively contained in D. >>>>>>>
It is just too complex relative to H.
What The F does UTM decide when DD calls UTM(DD)?
That doesn't happen; DD calls HHH(DD).
A diagonal functon set against UTM, call it DDUTM,
cannot be decided by UTM(DDUTM).
That call simply does not return.
Yes, and the other one does return proving the
whole point that I have been making for three
years that everyone (besides Ben) was too damned
dishonest to acknowledge has been true all along.
What "other one"? Is that referring to HHH(DD)?
HHH(DD) returns; UTM(DDUTM) does not return.
That's four functions; HHH isn't UTM; DD isn't DDUTM.
HHH and DDUTM are unrelated; UTM and DD are unrelated.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
A simulating termination analyzer that must
abort the interpretation of the above ASCII
string to prevent its own non-termination
has different behavior than a simulating
termination analyzer that need not abort
its interpretation of the above exact same
ASCII string.
1. Up to that abort point, UTM(DDD) and HHH(DDD) conduct an
absolutely identical simulation. The only difference is
that the simulation continues under UTM, and is abandoned
under HHH.
2. This is not a difference attributable to DDD. DDD is the same in
both cases. Not continuing the simulation fo DDD doesn't redefine what
DDD is. It is not possible to redefine what DDD is; it is the
agreed-upon procedure above.
On 11/18/2025 10:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 10:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 8:53 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 3:21 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
If you ask a decider to determine if my
sister's name is "Sally" and I don't tell
it who I am then the information contained
in the input is insufficient. This does not
in any way limit computation itself.
The problem is that UTM(D) can work out the fact that
D halts. Why is it that UTM knows that D's sister's
name is Sally, but H does not?
UTM(D) is answering a different question.
(a) It is not providing any answer at all.
Well, of course, by "UTM" we mean a /decider/ that purely
simulates:
ÿÿÿÿ bool UTM(ptr P) {
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ sim S = sim_create(P);
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ sim_step_exhaustively(S);
ÿÿÿÿÿÿ return true;
ÿÿÿÿ }
All deciders applied to D are tasked with answering exactly the >>>>>>>> same
question.
Pretending that a different question was asked is nonproductive; >>>>>>>> the answer will be interpreted to the original question.
All the information needed to answer is positively contained in D. >>>>>>>>
It is just too complex relative to H.
What The F does UTM decide when DD calls UTM(DD)?
That doesn't happen; DD calls HHH(DD).
A diagonal functon set against UTM, call it DDUTM,
cannot be decided by UTM(DDUTM).
That call simply does not return.
Yes, and the other one does return proving the
whole point that I have been making for three
years that everyone (besides Ben) was too damned
dishonest to acknowledge has been true all along.
What "other one"? Is that referring to HHH(DD)?
HHH(DD) returns; UTM(DDUTM) does not return.
That's four functions; HHH isn't UTM; DD isn't DDUTM.
HHH and DDUTM are unrelated; UTM and DD are unrelated.
void DDD()
{
ÿÿÿ HHH(DDD);
ÿÿÿ return;
}
A simulating termination analyzer that must
abort the interpretation of the above ASCII
string to prevent its own non-termination
has different behavior than a simulating
termination analyzer that need not abort
its interpretation of the above exact same
ASCII string.
1. Up to that abort point, UTM(DDD) and HHH(DDD) conduct an
absolutely identical simulation. The only difference is
that the simulation continues under UTM, and is abandoned
under HHH.
No that is counter-factual please try again.
Baseless dogmatic statements that are utterly bereft of any
supporting reasoning at all DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS.
2. This is not a difference attributable to DDD.ÿ DDD is the same in
both cases. Not continuing the simulation fo DDD doesn't redefine what
DDD is. It is not possible to redefine what DDD is; it is the
agreed-upon procedure above.
On 11/18/2025 10:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 10:31 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 8:53 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 7:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/18/2025 3:21 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-18, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
If you ask a decider to determine if my
sister's name is "Sally" and I don't tell
it who I am then the information contained
in the input is insufficient. This does not
in any way limit computation itself.
The problem is that UTM(D) can work out the fact that
D halts. Why is it that UTM knows that D's sister's
name is Sally, but H does not?
UTM(D) is answering a different question.
(a) It is not providing any answer at all.
Well, of course, by "UTM" we mean a /decider/ that purely simulates: >>>>>>>>
bool UTM(ptr P) {
sim S = sim_create(P);
sim_step_exhaustively(S);
return true;
}
All deciders applied to D are tasked with answering exactly the same >>>>>>>> question.
Pretending that a different question was asked is nonproductive; >>>>>>>> the answer will be interpreted to the original question.
All the information needed to answer is positively contained in D. >>>>>>>>
It is just too complex relative to H.
What The F does UTM decide when DD calls UTM(DD)?
That doesn't happen; DD calls HHH(DD).
A diagonal functon set against UTM, call it DDUTM,
cannot be decided by UTM(DDUTM).
That call simply does not return.
Yes, and the other one does return proving the
whole point that I have been making for three
years that everyone (besides Ben) was too damned
dishonest to acknowledge has been true all along.
What "other one"? Is that referring to HHH(DD)?
HHH(DD) returns; UTM(DDUTM) does not return.
That's four functions; HHH isn't UTM; DD isn't DDUTM.
HHH and DDUTM are unrelated; UTM and DD are unrelated.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
A simulating termination analyzer that must
abort the interpretation of the above ASCII
string to prevent its own non-termination
has different behavior than a simulating
termination analyzer that need not abort
its interpretation of the above exact same
ASCII string.
1. Up to that abort point, UTM(DDD) and HHH(DDD) conduct an
absolutely identical simulation. The only difference is
that the simulation continues under UTM, and is abandoned
under HHH.
No that is counter-factual please try again.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 237:53:16 |
| Calls: | 184 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,415 |