Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means.


devel / comp.theory / Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

SubjectAuthor
* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ keyolcott
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |+* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    || `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |  `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |     `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |   |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |       |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |         `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |          +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |          `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |           `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Dennis Bush
    |   |        |    |            | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | | +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            | |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |             +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    |   |        |    |             `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |              `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |               `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |                `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |                 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Andy Walker
    `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30786&group=comp.theory#30786

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:52:04 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="329c64b5163ea3f7b4477630ee123f72";
logging-data="4634"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qGOlF+BB6xeTFFMoJ64dVlP1V5cXf4O8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rv1JKeK3lFt3v0c6ngw2lQig7yg=
sha1:oGcI3scCItWPx0815CVPDo6GOWI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.ac072285d9bdcaa09929.20220422195204BST.87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:52 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> This is clearer:
> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>
> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
> behavior.

Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
return the correct answer!

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<87mtgd2an9.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30787&group=comp.theory#30787

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ last
step of my proof ]
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:14:34 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87mtgd2an9.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LYOdnajpqbQSe_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<14d4da81-985a-46cb-875e-9be90ba9e5e8n@googlegroups.com>
<8b-dnRgcvLgGYfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bh53c6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<c6Odncx31JiRn___nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="329c64b5163ea3f7b4477630ee123f72";
logging-data="4634"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Kj31GUiXmDpxWOaiIAddZJxUr2Ml9ARY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R+ywfonvp8h4rBRIeLW3XKkSvyk=
sha1:sG4ssayEU8J6fwGKJulhOXqt6pc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.9c3bcd61c96990c7ac17.20220422201434BST.87mtgd2an9.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:14 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/21/2022 8:11 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> HERE IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM:
>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>> to report this.
>>
>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts. No "alternative facts" can
>> make false the correct reply for a halting computation.
>
> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules any proxies for this
> actual behavior.

The halting problem -- finding a D such that D(X,Y) == true iff X(Y)
halts and false otherwise -- does not go away just because you don't
want to address it anymore.

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30788&group=comp.theory#30788

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:37:31 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="329c64b5163ea3f7b4477630ee123f72";
logging-data="4634"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+W34lPTwfrKkL661JvwLkAAND5XJMaYB8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wqHFHVqoooRWy3ZYK8J4aG8jODo=
sha1:NbtfjgFQ1Lr+yrHjp4w7e07excM=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.4a5a5d8da08fe9b201a3.20220422203731BST.87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:37 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>
>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done before you
>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>
>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>> to report this.
>>
>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts. The problem of exhibiting
>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt has
>> not gone away. It's called the halting problem. There are famous
>> theorems about it. At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>
> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
> else that disagrees.

The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
anything else you might find to waffle about. That problem is still
there even if you think you've solved the "input specifies non-halting"
problem.

> You keep maintaining the false assumption that the simulated input to
> H(P,P) must be computationally equivalent to the direct execution of
> P(P).

Actually no. If you bothered to read my replies you'd see that I keep
asking to say what you mean by your ill-formed mantra. And in the
absence of an answer, I explain what you /should/ mean by it if you want
to talking about the halting problem.

You can't answer, because if you mean what you should, you are wrong,
and if you mean something else your posts are irrelevant.

> It is easy to see that they specify a semantically different
> sequence of configurations.
>
> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>
> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
> behavior.

We all know this is the trick you are using.

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<AM6dnW9ZvsjWm_7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30789&group=comp.theory#30789

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 14:47:23 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 14:47:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c94ad87a-8f6f-4d8a-a960-d1c4f718a8cen@googlegroups.com>
<zsSdnS578JOiXP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y1zx2btc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87y1zx2btc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <AM6dnW9ZvsjWm_7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 42
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5HuRNZQdSqO2vzfZyg45cCq1KyTY1N77YVjMxx+4jl1t9oikyEB6nbOJ1UkeCmzTe4YnbI4lcTUwhlg!gZzSmm+IqYG3ztwm8wc+41R9p+NXh4XubHwakRj1Yx2bUhZE43ngsmRVgHuZt+PGbn9b38LUVGf8
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3914
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:47 UTC

On 4/22/2022 1:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> It does not matter at all that P(P) halts when we have proven that the
>> input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> The halting problem -- a function D such that D(X,Y) returns true iff
> X(Y) halts and false otherwise -- does not go away just because you
> decide to address some other question, even if it sounds superficially a
> bit similar.
>

This is merely a very persistent {learned by rote from the book}
misunderstanding of the actual halting problem definition.

It has always been the case that the halt decider must compute the
mapping from its input finite strings to its own accept or reject state
on the basis of whether this input specifies a halting computation or a
non-halting sequence of configurations.

The direct execution of P(P) has different behavior than the correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P), thus it is the actual behavior of the
actual input that is the ultimate measure of the actual behavior of the
actual input.

It can be verified that the input to H(P,P) is simulated correctly
entirely on the basis of the x86 source code for P, the x86 execution
trace of P by H, and the definition of H that it only simulates its
input until it sees the same infinitely repeating pattern that we can
all see in this same execution trace.

That no one here knows the x86 language well enough to confirm the fact
(besides me) that the input to H(P,P) really does specify a non-halting
sequence of configurations provides less that no basis what-so-ever to
rebut this fact.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<CP-dneuBWpkxlf7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30790&group=comp.theory#30790

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 14:57:32 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 14:57:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <CP-dneuBWpkxlf7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-W1Hg9+rEP+nZFBIl0O9U5lmy5SLwYIybHQtGcmguIuv8Vs7jZIEii8K80aqqt2XFSwvxS3XJypm/Nf0!xO5eru+3jzixpfNfEHjVF2mUTBzP+rTfFr/7+zzNBPBhHuxWNFeXJ0A7XfHonAZbPh/qwGOnQQsc
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3825
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:57 UTC

On 4/22/2022 1:52 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> This is clearer:
>> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
>> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>>
>> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
>> behavior.
>
> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
> return the correct answer!
>

It is a verified fact The actual behavior of the correctly simulated
input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

Everyone simply assumes that I am wrong about this entirely on the basis
of their woefully inadequate understanding of the x86 language.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

This is an explanation of a key new insight into the halting problem
provided in the language of software engineering. Technical computer
science terms are explained using software engineering terms.

To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
the halting problem is required.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30791&group=comp.theory#30791

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:09:45 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:09:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 56
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sMuDp9i4nleuX4QQEXPYZn83pwDKANjf6omkWd59O8yoUwwZJ+68xkxR8EC1k3jJhXpS7MjYQRbpz3G!M/w6s9PcDYGjgnYmXH7MEgVhggOMDnJT7JucVOlhOh/RBd8uu0pcToGVFE4VS8DlDhX8VmBdqXdM
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4452
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:09 UTC

On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done before you
>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>
>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>>> to report this.
>>>
>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts. The problem of exhibiting
>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt has
>>> not gone away. It's called the halting problem. There are famous
>>> theorems about it. At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>>
>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>> else that disagrees.
>
> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
> anything else you might find to waffle about.

The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not computationally
equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).

It is a very very weird case that these two are not computationally
equivalent, none-the-less it is a verified fact that they are not
computationally equivalent. This fact can only be verified by someone
with sufficient technical competence:

To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
the halting problem is required.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30792&group=comp.theory#30792

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 14:42:52 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:42:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c1c07c37bf1d92d7903dc426c3f417cf";
logging-data="7354"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+suneGwiFta6777Gu/CXMQ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GZWahvRnSFZ0QfJATFDqm2lHvqY=
In-Reply-To: <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:42 UTC

On 2022-04-22 14:09, olcott wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>> before you
>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>
>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>>>> to report this.
>>>>
>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of exhibiting
>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt has
>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>>>
>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>> else that disagrees.
>>
>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>
> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not computationally
> equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).

This is simply an ignorant statement. Rather, it was initially an
ignorant statement but since there have been many attempts made to
remedy your ignorance, it has since graduated to a
willfully-ignorant-grasping-at-straws-statement.

A halt decider is a Turing Machine which computes the halting *function*.

The halting function is a mathematical function. it is not defined in
terms of 'inputs' or 'simulators'. It is not defined in terms of halt
deciders at all since a function is logically prior to any algorithm for
computing that function.

The halting *function* is simply a mathematical mapping from
computations to {yes, no} based on whether they halt.

P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps P(P) to yes.

A halt decider is a Turing Machine (or any other model for implementing
algorithms) which implements this function.

The input to a halt decider is a finite string which represents an
element of the domain of the halting function. The output of that
decider is a string and/or state which represents an element of the
codomain of that function.

André

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30793&group=comp.theory#30793

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:58:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:58:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 101
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-czfilg0nPS2cRpFeRdRu2M24l/1GJ/L5sf6XCRmvEywcy89T9NzJyngAaXYQwZBYtUmuI+PrOAY1O8e!VLaOzW154sbdHSoAve5PhKKERzIaomlcS+4i1el2N1ZaTSEkVWo87yiX4yL9ANn5tFHVSpaZqzhc
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6150
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:58 UTC

On 4/22/2022 3:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-22 14:09, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>>> before you
>>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>>>>> to report this.
>>>>>
>>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of
>>>>> exhibiting
>>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt has
>>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>>>>
>>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>>> else that disagrees.
>>>
>>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>>
>> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
>> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to
>> H(P,P).
>
> This is simply an ignorant statement. Rather, it was initially an
> ignorant statement but since there have been many attempts made to
> remedy your ignorance, it has since graduated to a
> willfully-ignorant-grasping-at-straws-statement.
>
> A halt decider is a Turing Machine which computes the halting *function*.
>
> The halting function is a mathematical function. it is not defined in
> terms of 'inputs' or 'simulators'. It is not defined in terms of halt
> deciders at all since a function is logically prior to any algorithm for
> computing that function.
>
> The halting *function* is simply a mathematical mapping from
> computations to {yes, no} based on whether they halt.
>

No. A decider computes the mapping from (finite string) inputs to an
accept or reject state.

In the case of a halt decider it must do this on the basis of the actual
behavior specified by the actual input.

> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps P(P) to yes.
>

P(P) calls H(P,P) and the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.

That the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations is a verified fact by anyone having the sufficient
technical background. (Apparently no one here besides me).

To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
the halting problem is required.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

> A halt decider is a Turing Machine (or any other model for implementing
> algorithms) which implements this function.
>
> The input to a halt decider is a finite string which represents an
> element of the domain of the halting function. The output of that
> decider is a string and/or state which represents an element of the
> codomain of that function.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30794&group=comp.theory#30794

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:42:02 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me> <7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:42:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c1c07c37bf1d92d7903dc426c3f417cf";
logging-data="32763"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18S0aFgULe75vU9AoKLHvCT"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aXIuQ2J/4a35/BbyxYA83Cs3bFs=
In-Reply-To: <7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:42 UTC

On 2022-04-22 14:58, olcott wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 3:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-22 14:09, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>>>>>> to report this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of
>>>>>> exhibiting
>>>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>>>> else that disagrees.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>>>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>>>
>>> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
>>> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to
>>> H(P,P).
>>
>> This is simply an ignorant statement. Rather, it was initially an
>> ignorant statement but since there have been many attempts made to
>> remedy your ignorance, it has since graduated to a
>> willfully-ignorant-grasping-at-straws-statement.
>>
>> A halt decider is a Turing Machine which computes the halting *function*.
>>
>> The halting function is a mathematical function. it is not defined in
>> terms of 'inputs' or 'simulators'. It is not defined in terms of halt
>> deciders at all since a function is logically prior to any algorithm
>> for computing that function.
>>
>> The halting *function* is simply a mathematical mapping from
>> computations to {yes, no} based on whether they halt.
>>
>
> No. A decider computes the mapping from (finite string) inputs to an
> accept or reject state.

I was defining the halting *function*. That is an entirely different
animal from a halt *decider*. Do you still not grasp the distinction
between a Turing Machine and the function which it computes?

> In the case of a halt decider it must do this on the basis of the actual
> behavior specified by the actual input.
>
>> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps P(P) to yes.
>>
>
> P(P) calls H(P,P) and the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
> sequence of configurations.

P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps it to YES. Anything that
goes on inside P(P), like whether it calls H(P, P) or what you might
think the "input" to H(P, P) specifies is irrelevant. Again, I am
talking about the halting *function*, not about halt deciders, let alone
your decider.

> That the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of
> configurations is a verified fact by anyone having the sufficient
> technical background. (Apparently no one here besides me).
>
>
>
> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
> the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
> translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
> the halting problem is required.

To understand the halting problem knowledge of the halting problem is
required. That's essentially a truism.

C, the (non-existent) 'x86 programming language', exactly how C
translates into x86, and what program emulators are are all completely
irrelevant to the halting *function*. Again, I'm talking about the
mathematical function, not the details of your 'decider'.

As for your paper, I agree that no knowledge of the halting problem is
required. In fact, the ideal reader should have no knowledge of this
problem; otherwise they will quickly realize that your paper is about
something else.

André

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<KIudnQzUXIEdvv7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30795&group=comp.theory#30795

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:52:00 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:51:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me> <7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <KIudnQzUXIEdvv7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 130
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pq8DUt5JKBYd/39I39rpQcK34aOuvX2MvxwtxcVIXBV9E/4SNSnHlB4/r7hPLjusoLl3KX4bOBUXZky!7bWss6/5c1HEEe5XKEgsXlBYXZB0sTLWiWZSrADHC9fu5+0pNbU0kKNbk18tOA+J8ywz0Kw/orol
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7448
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:51 UTC

On 4/22/2022 4:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-22 14:58, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 3:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-22 14:09, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect
>>>>>>>> for H
>>>>>>>> to report this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of
>>>>>>> exhibiting
>>>>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not
>>>>>>> halt has
>>>>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in addressing
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>>>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>>>>> else that disagrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>>>>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
>>>> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>> H(P,P).
>>>
>>> This is simply an ignorant statement. Rather, it was initially an
>>> ignorant statement but since there have been many attempts made to
>>> remedy your ignorance, it has since graduated to a
>>> willfully-ignorant-grasping-at-straws-statement.
>>>
>>> A halt decider is a Turing Machine which computes the halting
>>> *function*.
>>>
>>> The halting function is a mathematical function. it is not defined in
>>> terms of 'inputs' or 'simulators'. It is not defined in terms of halt
>>> deciders at all since a function is logically prior to any algorithm
>>> for computing that function.
>>>
>>> The halting *function* is simply a mathematical mapping from
>>> computations to {yes, no} based on whether they halt.
>>>
>>
>> No. A decider computes the mapping from (finite string) inputs to an
>> accept or reject state.
>
> I was defining the halting *function*. That is an entirely different
> animal from a halt *decider*. Do you still not grasp the distinction
> between a Turing Machine and the function which it computes?
>

You are saying that a halting function looks for dogs in the living room
by looking for cats in the kitchen, I know this is incorrect.

H is required to report on the halt status of its actual inputs and no
weasel wording can possibly avoid this.

>> In the case of a halt decider it must do this on the basis of the
>> actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>
>>> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps P(P) to yes.
>>>
>>
>> P(P) calls H(P,P) and the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>> sequence of configurations.
>
> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps it to YES. Anything that
> goes on inside P(P), like whether it calls H(P, P) or what you might
> think the "input" to H(P, P) specifies is irrelevant. Again, I am
> talking about the halting *function*, not about halt deciders, let alone
> your decider.
>
>> That the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of
>> configurations is a verified fact by anyone having the sufficient
>> technical background. (Apparently no one here besides me).
>>
>>
>>
>> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert
>> in the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly
>> how C translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No
>> knowledge of the halting problem is required.
>
> To understand the halting problem knowledge of the halting problem is
> required. That's essentially a truism.
>
> C, the (non-existent) 'x86 programming language',

You are such a twit for disagreeing with verified facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language

> exactly how C
> translates into x86, and what program emulators are are all completely
> irrelevant to the halting *function*. Again, I'm talking about the
> mathematical function, not the details of your 'decider'.
>
> As for your paper, I agree that no knowledge of the halting problem is
> required. In fact, the ideal reader should have no knowledge of this
> problem; otherwise they will quickly realize that your paper is about
> something else.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<t3vc0k$jk$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30797&group=comp.theory#30797

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:59:31 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <t3vc0k$jk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me> <7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me> <KIudnQzUXIEdvv7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:59:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="05aeceabbf8e97e0730abd163bce03cc";
logging-data="628"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KlaR3W0Nb8DwYeVpV/rAH"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BJhodghEKIk/p8uycq6LmJgQUz8=
In-Reply-To: <KIudnQzUXIEdvv7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:59 UTC

On 2022-04-22 15:51, olcott wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 4:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-22 14:58, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2022 3:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-22 14:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect
>>>>>>>>> for H
>>>>>>>>> to report this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of
>>>>>>>> exhibiting
>>>>>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not
>>>>>>>> halt has
>>>>>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>>>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in
>>>>>>>> addressing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>>>>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any
>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>> else that disagrees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>>>>>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
>>>>> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input
>>>>> to H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> This is simply an ignorant statement. Rather, it was initially an
>>>> ignorant statement but since there have been many attempts made to
>>>> remedy your ignorance, it has since graduated to a
>>>> willfully-ignorant-grasping-at-straws-statement.
>>>>
>>>> A halt decider is a Turing Machine which computes the halting
>>>> *function*.
>>>>
>>>> The halting function is a mathematical function. it is not defined
>>>> in terms of 'inputs' or 'simulators'. It is not defined in terms of
>>>> halt deciders at all since a function is logically prior to any
>>>> algorithm for computing that function.
>>>>
>>>> The halting *function* is simply a mathematical mapping from
>>>> computations to {yes, no} based on whether they halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. A decider computes the mapping from (finite string) inputs to an
>>> accept or reject state.
>>
>> I was defining the halting *function*. That is an entirely different
>> animal from a halt *decider*. Do you still not grasp the distinction
>> between a Turing Machine and the function which it computes?
>>
>
> You are saying that a halting function looks for dogs in the living room
> by looking for cats in the kitchen, I know this is incorrect.

I have absolutely no idea what you intend this to mean nor how it
relates to my statement. Again, do you understand the distinction
between a Turing Machine and the function which it computes?

> H is required to report on the halt status of its actual inputs and no
> weasel wording can possibly avoid this.

H is not the halting function. H is your alleged C program. Or possibly
your alleged Turing Machine. You go back and forth on this.

The halting function is a mathematical mapping, not a Turing Machine or
a program.

>
>>> In the case of a halt decider it must do this on the basis of the
>>> actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>
>>>> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps P(P) to yes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> P(P) calls H(P,P) and the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps it to YES. Anything
>> that goes on inside P(P), like whether it calls H(P, P) or what you
>> might think the "input" to H(P, P) specifies is irrelevant. Again, I
>> am talking about the halting *function*, not about halt deciders, let
>> alone your decider.
>>
>>> That the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>> configurations is a verified fact by anyone having the sufficient
>>> technical background. (Apparently no one here besides me).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert
>>> in the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly
>>> how C translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No
>>> knowledge of the halting problem is required.
>>
>> To understand the halting problem knowledge of the halting problem is
>> required. That's essentially a truism.
>>
>> C, the (non-existent) 'x86 programming language',
>
> You are such a twit for disagreeing with verified facts.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language

The very article you cite says "x86 assembly language [not x86
programming language] is the name for *the family* [emphasis mine] of
assembly languages which provide some level of backward compatibility
with CPUs back to the Intel 8008 microprocessor".

There is no such thing as the x86 programming language. x86 refers to a
large set of *processors*, each with its own instruction set. Individual
assemblers might provide compatibility with some or all of these
processors, and each *assembler* defines its own programming language.
Certainly there are similarities between them, but there is no such
thing as 'x86 assembly language' let alone 'THE x86 programming language".

I know that you don't care about precision, but it's something you need
to learn if you ever want to publish.

André

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<ec8ddfe9-ef7c-4099-b40e-0da315abb629n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30798&group=comp.theory#30798

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1722:b0:69e:e99a:db06 with SMTP id az34-20020a05620a172200b0069ee99adb06mr4135085qkb.534.1650668458199;
Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d785:0:b0:641:cbcd:4a2d with SMTP id
o127-20020a25d785000000b00641cbcd4a2dmr6754769ybg.251.1650668457947; Fri, 22
Apr 2022 16:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 16:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:c1f9:a253:ca5e:a7eb;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:c1f9:a253:ca5e:a7eb
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com> <875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ec8ddfe9-ef7c-4099-b40e-0da315abb629n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Dennis,_
Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:00:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 30
 by: Malcolm McLean - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:00 UTC

On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 19:52:06 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
> > This is clearer:
> > With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
> > With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
> >
> > Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
> > behavior.
> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
> return the correct answer!
>
You assume bad faith. But since PO admits that P(P) halts whilst H(P,P)
reports non-halting, the obvious explantion is that he is posting in good
faith.
You have an x86 emulator. You modify it with infinite cycle detection logic,
and create a reasonably accurate halt decider. But of course it chokes on
H_Hat<H_Hat>as it must do.
However if you are not very well educated in thse matters, you might examine
H for errors. And it's not obvious where the error is. The infinite cycle detection
logic holds up in the vast majority of cases, after all. And the code is quite
complicated.
It's easy to see how someone could declare that they see no error in the
processing of H_Hat<H_Hat>. But in fact it halts, whilst H classifies it
as non-halting. Now here, it is true, it takes a certain obtuseness not to
draw the obvious conclusion. But if you insist that the infinite cycle detecction
code is correct, then you are reduced to the absurdity of saying it is correct
whilst your own run produces the opposite result.

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<b8CdnXsuWdGsqP7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30800&group=comp.theory#30800

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:07:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:07:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<ec8ddfe9-ef7c-4099-b40e-0da315abb629n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ec8ddfe9-ef7c-4099-b40e-0da315abb629n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <b8CdnXsuWdGsqP7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 55
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-iP0nHYwJZy/dnua9PunFgyOL9jLFmxtV3MFCY9tA2PltZyE+HPSZhtjzar0uKa39dPhdG6u0ggRKW9L!o8AVld5Ed1tR7bvZ8UByAn39Z8henQVZ5PA/ZZJCiT+yBGbMp5ztJOaQBUljVxQG0RULSx7qNUf+
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4681
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:07 UTC

On 4/22/2022 6:00 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 19:52:06 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is clearer:
>>> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
>>> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>>>
>>> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
>>> behavior.
>> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
>> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
>> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
>> return the correct answer!
>>
> You assume bad faith. But since PO admits that P(P) halts whilst H(P,P)
> reports non-halting, the obvious explantion is that he is posting in good
> faith.
> You have an x86 emulator. You modify it with infinite cycle detection logic,
> and create a reasonably accurate halt decider. But of course it chokes on
> H_Hat<H_Hat>as it must do.

It does not freaking choke, look at the actual execution of the code.

Completely rewritten today, focusing on a software engineering target
audience: *Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
simulation* (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

> However if you are not very well educated in thse matters, you might examine
> H for errors. And it's not obvious where the error is. The infinite cycle detection
> logic holds up in the vast majority of cases, after all. And the code is quite
> complicated.

> It's easy to see how someone could declare that they see no error in the
> processing of H_Hat<H_Hat>. But in fact it halts, whilst H classifies it
> as non-halting. Now here, it is true, it takes a certain obtuseness not to
> draw the obvious conclusion. But if you insist that the infinite cycle detecction
> code is correct, then you are reduced to the absurdity of saying it is correct
> whilst your own run produces the opposite result.

It is not an absurdity P(P) and the correct simulation of the input to
H(P,P) are not computationally equivalent even though intuition really
seems to say that they must be computationally equivalent. It is a
verifiable fact that they are not computationally equivalent.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<b8CdnXouWdH-qP7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30802&group=comp.theory#30802

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:08:19 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:08:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me> <7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me> <KIudnQzUXIEdvv7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3vc0k$jk$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3vc0k$jk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <b8CdnXouWdH-qP7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 152
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-FiOoL9+ZBeY/dtRNmbEEMgvmsCN/zN/Y9DlX5WDLUwlhoqm6tbzRPPXqKwdHS+BGR0I56f1CARYNJg/!Y171Xta95OGi8aUWSEx5+UpnCQbBco4URjRRx56hCofNxL2InvhPosLx/OgMFxd8wyqSppj1lVLG
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8617
 by: olcott - Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:08 UTC

On 4/22/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-22 15:51, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 4:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-22 14:58, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2022 3:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-22 14:09, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>>>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>>>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>>>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> for H
>>>>>>>>>> to report this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of
>>>>>>>>> exhibiting
>>>>>>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not
>>>>>>>>> halt has
>>>>>>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>>>>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in
>>>>>>>>> addressing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>>>>>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any
>>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>>> else that disagrees.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
>>>>>> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input
>>>>>> to H(P,P).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply an ignorant statement. Rather, it was initially an
>>>>> ignorant statement but since there have been many attempts made to
>>>>> remedy your ignorance, it has since graduated to a
>>>>> willfully-ignorant-grasping-at-straws-statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> A halt decider is a Turing Machine which computes the halting
>>>>> *function*.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting function is a mathematical function. it is not defined
>>>>> in terms of 'inputs' or 'simulators'. It is not defined in terms of
>>>>> halt deciders at all since a function is logically prior to any
>>>>> algorithm for computing that function.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting *function* is simply a mathematical mapping from
>>>>> computations to {yes, no} based on whether they halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. A decider computes the mapping from (finite string) inputs to an
>>>> accept or reject state.
>>>
>>> I was defining the halting *function*. That is an entirely different
>>> animal from a halt *decider*. Do you still not grasp the distinction
>>> between a Turing Machine and the function which it computes?
>>>
>>
>> You are saying that a halting function looks for dogs in the living
>> room by looking for cats in the kitchen, I know this is incorrect.
>
> I have absolutely no idea what you intend this to mean nor how it
> relates to my statement. Again, do you understand the distinction
> between a Turing Machine and the function which it computes?
>
>> H is required to report on the halt status of its actual inputs and no
>> weasel wording can possibly avoid this.
>
> H is not the halting function. H is your alleged C program. Or possibly
> your alleged Turing Machine. You go back and forth on this.
>
> The halting function is a mathematical mapping, not a Turing Machine or
> a program.
>
>>
>>>> In the case of a halt decider it must do this on the basis of the
>>>> actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>
>>>>> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps P(P) to yes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P(P) calls H(P,P) and the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> P(P) halts. Therefore the halting function maps it to YES. Anything
>>> that goes on inside P(P), like whether it calls H(P, P) or what you
>>> might think the "input" to H(P, P) specifies is irrelevant. Again, I
>>> am talking about the halting *function*, not about halt deciders, let
>>> alone your decider.
>>>
>>>> That the input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>> configurations is a verified fact by anyone having the sufficient
>>>> technical background. (Apparently no one here besides me).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert
>>>> in the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly
>>>> how C translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No
>>>> knowledge of the halting problem is required.
>>>
>>> To understand the halting problem knowledge of the halting problem is
>>> required. That's essentially a truism.
>>>
>>> C, the (non-existent) 'x86 programming language',
>>
>> You are such a twit for disagreeing with verified facts.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language
>
> The very article you cite says "x86 assembly language [not x86
> programming language] is the name for *the family* [emphasis mine] of
> assembly languages which provide some level of backward compatibility
> with CPUs back to the Intel 8008 microprocessor".
>
> There is no such thing as the x86 programming language.

LIAR

> x86 refers to a
> large set of *processors*, each with its own instruction set. Individual
> assemblers might provide compatibility with some or all of these
> processors, and each *assembler* defines its own programming language.
> Certainly there are similarities between them, but there is no such
> thing as 'x86 assembly language' let alone 'THE x86 programming language".
>
> I know that you don't care about precision, but it's something you need
> to learn if you ever want to publish.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<87zgkc1xeq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30805&group=comp.theory#30805

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:00:29 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <87zgkc1xeq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c94ad87a-8f6f-4d8a-a960-d1c4f718a8cen@googlegroups.com>
<zsSdnS578JOiXP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87y1zx2btc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<AM6dnW9ZvsjWm_7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5f4390e23ad650786eee32d6dd006127";
logging-data="20404"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KfFarJEvdoh4IaP0qKia+AFgiFJaobUE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:66ECDs4KV6RrMkNEC49GqmQux40=
sha1:6uiB5IfJqagxtZdNW0KWp6UIzd8=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.4a0f5b74e4c9d038cf18.20220423010029BST.87zgkc1xeq.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:00 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/22/2022 1:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> It does not matter at all that P(P) halts when we have proven that the
>>> input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> The halting problem -- a function D such that D(X,Y) returns true iff
>> X(Y) halts and false otherwise -- does not go away just because you
>> decide to address some other question, even if it sounds superficially a
>> bit similar.
>
> This is merely a very persistent {learned by rote from the book}
> misunderstanding of the actual halting problem definition.

Let's imagine we are in PO land... We've finally understood the mistake
that everyone else has been making -- it's not about what P(P) does but
that <mindless monotone>the input to H(P,P) specifies non-halting
behaviour</mindless monotone>. We publish. No one cares. We are
surprised; people /still/ want to know if a function call halts or not.
They /still/ want a function D such that D(X,Y) returns true iff X(Y)
halts and false otherwise and our telling them that what matters is that
<mindless monotone>the input to H(P,P) specifies non-halting
behaviour</mindless monotone> seems to leave them cold.

Strange, I know, but they seem to want to now of their programs halt,
not if <mindless monotone>the input to H specifies non-halting
behaviour</mindless monotone>. There's no accounting for taste.

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<87tuak1x25.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30806&group=comp.theory#30806

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:08:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <87tuak1x25.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<CP-dneuBWpkxlf7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5f4390e23ad650786eee32d6dd006127";
logging-data="20404"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+UDEF/yPibwlEabZd6DLR3a+AyFYaOWUM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Ron6k2Vby+D/R9PS8E7oGFOHC8=
sha1:Bnd0ALN34kXhEydX/z/UhUf+2ow=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.6036861092a7f5b4e4f5.20220423010802BST.87tuak1x25.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:08 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/22/2022 1:52 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> This is clearer:
>>> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
>>> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>>>
>>> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
>>> behavior.
>>
>> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
>> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
>> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
>> return the correct answer!
>
> It is a verified fact The actual behavior of the correctly simulated
> input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

No it isn't. You have not even clearly stated what you mean by that.
Avoiding being clear is a sure sign that a crank is knowingly playing
word games.

> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert
> in the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly
> how C translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No
> knowledge of the halting problem is required.

Are you an expert in the C programming language? I don't think so. The
evidence I've seen suggests otherwise. Are you an expert in what you
call "the x86 programming language"? Again, when I posted a trace of a
64-bit execution you ran a mile in panic. You do however have the final
qualification nailed down.

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<opmdnV-oYpd83v7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30807&group=comp.theory#30807

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:10:09 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:10:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c94ad87a-8f6f-4d8a-a960-d1c4f718a8cen@googlegroups.com>
<zsSdnS578JOiXP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y1zx2btc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<AM6dnW9ZvsjWm_7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkc1xeq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87zgkc1xeq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <opmdnV-oYpd83v7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 42
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-g2jSI12JPQF7oVRj2Nxbw4MVJOCz7oluFhjmQQ9Aw0j+/9ofZyDsuUFS3BZhECAqPmILU1oqJu2NZbe!RYO8QpG4g2md6aIuAnuya0JBkSM2n4T3D8SuFTni/oHDXUhZ+6/ceEhXEM9DOOlhvHES/4ThQwLm
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3912
 by: olcott - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:10 UTC

On 4/22/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/22/2022 1:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> It does not matter at all that P(P) halts when we have proven that the
>>>> input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> The halting problem -- a function D such that D(X,Y) returns true iff
>>> X(Y) halts and false otherwise -- does not go away just because you
>>> decide to address some other question, even if it sounds superficially a
>>> bit similar.
>>
>> This is merely a very persistent {learned by rote from the book}
>> misunderstanding of the actual halting problem definition.
>
> Let's imagine we are in PO land... We've finally understood the mistake
> that everyone else has been making -- it's not about what P(P) does but

about the actual behavior of the actual input: H(P,P)
int X = sum(3,4); must produce 7 or it is wrong.

> that <mindless monotone>the input to H(P,P) specifies non-halting
> behaviour</mindless monotone>. We publish. No one cares. We are
> surprised; people /still/ want to know if a function call halts or not.
> They /still/ want a function D such that D(X,Y) returns true iff X(Y)
> halts and false otherwise and our telling them that what matters is that
> <mindless monotone>the input to H(P,P) specifies non-halting
> behaviour</mindless monotone> seems to leave them cold.
>
> Strange, I know, but they seem to want to now of their programs halt,
> not if <mindless monotone>the input to H specifies non-halting
> behaviour</mindless monotone>. There's no accounting for taste.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<Uu2dnQRap-u62P7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30808&group=comp.theory#30808

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:15:35 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:15:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<CP-dneuBWpkxlf7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuak1x25.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87tuak1x25.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Uu2dnQRap-u62P7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 53
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RCscDUu7uyLPQ12CJJYAYX5NfR8N8d2O1vNfrZ7EzT7qC8wpkwY1+BItW9qB33AZqOogm0GtzVQT2CZ!eCxTsynp6OJA1MFDEguCToylYxWPy1tHawRDJupRg39afQJST84uYevJhrHMr8oRAKD8KS24zO8p
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4133
 by: olcott - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:15 UTC

On 4/22/2022 7:08 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/22/2022 1:52 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is clearer:
>>>> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
>>>> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>>>>
>>>> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
>>>> behavior.
>>>
>>> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
>>> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
>>> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
>>> return the correct answer!
>>
>> It is a verified fact The actual behavior of the correctly simulated
>> input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> No it isn't. You have not even clearly stated what you mean by that.
> Avoiding being clear is a sure sign that a crank is knowingly playing
> word games.
>

That the x86 language is totally over your head does not mean that I
have not totally proved this point.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

>> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert
>> in the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly
>> how C translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No
>> knowledge of the halting problem is required.
>
> Are you an expert in the C programming language? I don't think so. The
> evidence I've seen suggests otherwise. Are you an expert in what you
> call "the x86 programming language"? Again, when I posted a trace of a
> 64-bit execution you ran a mile in panic. You do however have the final
> qualification nailed down.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<87o80s1wj7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30809&group=comp.theory#30809

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:19:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <87o80s1wj7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5f4390e23ad650786eee32d6dd006127";
logging-data="20404"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+H9j27FVMy5M8qAOCGyxrxIYWBoHpxRHI="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZnP8mqrH3YR3r02Sg96MmJe+wWo=
sha1:r3StkkdzO37A+WOOxqTFBMrIJhc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.099cebe73138c2917505.20220423011924BST.87o80s1wj7.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:19 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done before you
>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>
>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>>>> to report this.
>>>>
>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts. The problem of exhibiting
>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt has
>>>> not gone away. It's called the halting problem. There are famous
>>>> theorems about it. At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>>>
>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>> else that disagrees.
>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>
> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to
> H(P,P).

Citation? Oh, you don't have one -- you just made this mantra up to
explain (or, failing that, deflect attention from) why the wrong answer
should be the right answer.

You really should have worked harder at obscuring what the answer is.
When, over three years ago, you lied about... sorry, when you used
"poetic license" to say that you had a pair of actual Turing machines,
fully encoded that decides the key case, you would not say. I asked
again and again what answer your "poetically licenced" H gave for (Ĥ,Ĥ)
but you would not answer. /That's/ how it's done. Don't leak even a
single bit of information. Keep everything secret (like you keep the
magic code secret).

Ever since you were clear that H(P,P) == false "even though P(P) halts"
you have been fighting a rearguard action to defend this nonsense. It's
a losing battle, though like all bad generals, you won't leave the field
with honour.

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<G-KdnUAMN7HE2v7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30810&group=comp.theory#30810

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:24:57 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 19:24:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80s1wj7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87o80s1wj7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <G-KdnUAMN7HE2v7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 122
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Tsl2x254gWuKZrwbANP2R/dxeOTBYIbkxGZuuEPE+E8i6OCe+kBkF1kogTKApVhO1fVGepUfQBakxVz!WD7ebneaIru6tGZszvSQFA4itVlb/6ZY1YoP0C9QTSRIpq07Y9HS0bqJdhXqTEgE1P5iYP681LcG
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7196
 by: olcott - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 00:24 UTC

On 4/22/2022 7:19 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done before you
>>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>>>>> to report this.
>>>>>
>>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts. The problem of exhibiting
>>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt has
>>>>> not gone away. It's called the halting problem. There are famous
>>>>> theorems about it. At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>>>>
>>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>>> else that disagrees.
>>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>>
>> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
>> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to
>> H(P,P).
>
> Citation? Oh, you don't have one -- you just made this mantra up to
> explain (or, failing that, deflect attention from) why the wrong answer
> should be the right answer.
>

Anyone knowing the x86 language can verify this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language
Why don't you learn the tiny subset that I use in P?

#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()
[000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
[000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
[000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
[000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
[000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
[000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
[000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]

The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
....[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
....[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
....[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
....[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
....[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
....[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
reject this input as non-halting.

> You really should have worked harder at obscuring what the answer is.
> When, over three years ago, you lied about... sorry, when you used
> "poetic license" to say that you had a pair of actual Turing machines,
> fully encoded that decides the key case, you would not say. I asked
> again and again what answer your "poetically licenced" H gave for (Ĥ,Ĥ)
> but you would not answer. /That's/ how it's done. Don't leak even a
> single bit of information. Keep everything secret (like you keep the
> magic code secret).
>
> Ever since you were clear that H(P,P) == false "even though P(P) halts"
> you have been fighting a rearguard action to defend this nonsense. It's
> a losing battle, though like all bad generals, you won't leave the field
> with honour.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<87ilr01uni.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30811&group=comp.theory#30811

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 02:00:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <87ilr01uni.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<ec8ddfe9-ef7c-4099-b40e-0da315abb629n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5f4390e23ad650786eee32d6dd006127";
logging-data="11759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188jio7qx/rdW5fxwgl/dX/UrIMS6P7P2c="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jiWyYrxjJGw3pNkUfrVAYI2gcvk=
sha1:qUHab8MNA+RiZCLn4AxazL4Di7U=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.42b32a7fbeb532c3cdf2.20220423020001BST.87ilr01uni.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:00 UTC

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 19:52:06 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>> > This is clearer:
>> > With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
>> > With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>> >
>> > Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
>> > behavior.
>> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
>> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
>> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
>> return the correct answer!
>>
> You assume bad faith.

Yes.

> But since PO admits that P(P) halts whilst H(P,P) reports non-halting,
> the obvious explantion is that he is posting in good faith.

An alternative is that he as no option because previous
"solutions" were about explaining the wrong answer away. Having done
that, he's stuck with it.

He's never admitted that any of his other ruses were wrong. 18 years
we've been battling various "solutions", each one logically sufficient
in itself, but each abandoned because all were as daft as this latest
attempt. Do you think he has forgotten these ploys? Is his mind so
feeble as to have no recollection of how he overturned a major result in
CS 36 times before? Or maybe his delusions are so strong that they can
sustain this degree of cognitive dissonance for years? It's bad faith
or serious mental health issues.

If I'm honest, I suspect it's the latter, but then what does it say
about my still talking to him? Resolving my own cognitive dissonance
requires I pretend it's bad faith.

> You have an x86 emulator. You modify it with infinite cycle detection logic,
> and create a reasonably accurate halt decider. But of course it chokes on
> H_Hat<H_Hat>as it must do.
> However if you are not very well educated in thse matters, you might examine
> H for errors. And it's not obvious where the error is. The infinite cycle detection
> logic holds up in the vast majority of cases, after all. And the code is quite
> complicated.

Do you really think he has some complicated cycle detection code? No,
he has code /outside of H/ that spots one obvious and simple pattern.
His H just calls it's first argument passing it the second. The
"halt-detecting OS" (the modified emulator) spots the recursion (which
is, of course, there) and aborts H. At various times, I think he's
assumed that he could put this detection code into H and it would not
matter (obviously wrong) or that false is correct because the code
without the abort is indeed non-halting.

Most importantly -- there no nested simulation. Maybe he tired, but I
suspect he simply could not work out how to make the simulator
re-entrant.

> It's easy to see how someone could declare that they see no error in
> the processing of H_Hat<H_Hat>. But in fact it halts, whilst H
> classifies it as non-halting. Now here, it is true, it takes a certain
> obtuseness not to draw the obvious conclusion.

Do you consider his denial that what H(X,Y) reports should not be about
what X(Y) does to be in good faith? He accepted it in the "it's correct
because of what would happen if..." days and there has been no good
faith admission that he's changed his mind.

Is it a sign of good faith to call almost everyone who disagrees with
you ignorant and dishonest?

Would someone showing good faith just cut quotes like the following
uncommented on? Indeed could they be posted in good faith to start
with?

"Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
times."

"No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many
times."

"The fact the a computation stops running does not prove that it
halts."

"the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
halting computation"

And is it a sign of good faith to avoid answering this simple question:

"What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not
Ĥ halts or not"

more the sixty times?

> But if you insist that
> the infinite cycle detecction code is correct, then you are reduced to
> the absurdity of saying it is correct whilst your own run produces the
> opposite result.

How about saying, "this is odd -- can anyone here help me to
understand? Here's the code. What's going on here?".

--
Ben.

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<D4idnSiRVruWzP7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30812&group=comp.theory#30812

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:06:19 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:06:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<ec8ddfe9-ef7c-4099-b40e-0da315abb629n@googlegroups.com>
<87ilr01uni.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ilr01uni.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <D4idnSiRVruWzP7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 71
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4FCmMYvJLua6ZtnWW94p/u4ZVcb3mR70sltJ1HZYo512lq92MmohEfBF8/yhKIALAfIbwASyg8woW8L!LB9FJ+WTy673HVAbinrmzJ2IgeVIBE9NhRyE+nEzhLxj2jkKlmx/sNyXkbLFKYXio4XTXQhk2V2K
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5381
 by: olcott - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:06 UTC

On 4/22/2022 8:00 PM, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 19:52:06 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is clearer:
>>>> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
>>>> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>>>>
>>>> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
>>>> behavior.
>>> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been trying
>>> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
>>> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
>>> return the correct answer!
>>>
>> You assume bad faith.
>
> Yes.
>
>> But since PO admits that P(P) halts whilst H(P,P) reports non-halting,
>> the obvious explantion is that he is posting in good faith.
>
> An alternative is that he as no option because previous
> "solutions" were about explaining the wrong answer away. Having done
> that, he's stuck with it.
>
> He's never admitted that any of his other ruses were wrong. 18 years
> we've been battling various "solutions", each one logically sufficient
> in itself, but each abandoned because all were as daft as this latest
> attempt. Do you think he has forgotten these ploys? Is his mind so
> feeble as to have no recollection of how he overturned a major result in
> CS 36 times before? Or maybe his delusions are so strong that they can
> sustain this degree of cognitive dissonance for years? It's bad faith
> or serious mental health issues.
>
> If I'm honest, I suspect it's the latter, but then what does it say
> about my still talking to him? Resolving my own cognitive dissonance
> requires I pretend it's bad faith.
>
>> You have an x86 emulator. You modify it with infinite cycle detection logic,
>> and create a reasonably accurate halt decider. But of course it chokes on
>> H_Hat<H_Hat>as it must do.
>> However if you are not very well educated in thse matters, you might examine
>> H for errors. And it's not obvious where the error is. The infinite cycle detection
>> logic holds up in the vast majority of cases, after all. And the code is quite
>> complicated.
>
> Do you really think he has some complicated cycle detection code? No,
> he has code /outside of H/ that spots one obvious and simple pattern.
> His H just calls it's first argument passing it the second. The
> "halt-detecting OS" (the modified emulator) spots the recursion (which
> is, of course, there) > and aborts H. At various times, I think he's
> assumed that he could put this detection code into H and it would not
> matter (obviously wrong) or that false is correct because the code
> without the abort is indeed non-halting.
>
> Most importantly -- there no nested simulation. Maybe he tired, but I
> suspect he simply could not work out how to make the simulator
> re-entrant.
That was the hardest part. Each simulation has its own RAM, stack and
machine registers. I have done this kind of operating system level
programming before.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ]

<PLWdnU1hCJ6Mzv7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30814&group=comp.theory#30814

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:14:57 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:14:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<JKednVQh381ImP__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<kuednZaYx8o7kv__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfq52bor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<ec8ddfe9-ef7c-4099-b40e-0da315abb629n@googlegroups.com>
<87ilr01uni.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <D4idnSiRVruWzP7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <D4idnSiRVruWzP7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <PLWdnU1hCJ6Mzv7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pxaJJ7S/jvsle/QbieHRXd3PBWbfNR+9cYeFgMf7zFy3mp6ue0j/aqwlwXRr+Ts8iK4FM/od7FLFa7Q!k1qO5fX/9584FP1vPFXzHf1zUZsRFkuwLLwNiGNUup2jsWLO7UTa+18+nto1fr0WRtQ+D1R1NgPh
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6857
 by: olcott - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:14 UTC

On 4/22/2022 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 8:00 PM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 19:52:06 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> This is clearer:
>>>>> With H(P,P) H is invoked before P(P) is simulated.
>>>>> With P(P) P is invoked before H(P,P) is invoked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because H and P are invoked in a different order this changes their
>>>>> behavior.
>>>> Everyone has been quite sure that this is the trick you have been
>>>> trying
>>>> to pull ever since you flatly denied it to Mike Terry more than three
>>>> years ago. What's puzzling is why you don't use this trick to have H
>>>> return the correct answer!
>>>>
>>> You assume bad faith.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> But since PO admits that P(P) halts whilst H(P,P) reports non-halting,
>>> the obvious explantion is that he is posting in good faith.
>>
>> An alternative is that he as no option because previous
>> "solutions" were about explaining the wrong answer away.  Having done
>> that, he's stuck with it.
>>
>> He's never admitted that any of his other ruses were wrong.  18 years
>> we've been battling various "solutions", each one logically sufficient
>> in itself, but each abandoned because all were as daft as this latest
>> attempt.  Do you think he has forgotten these ploys?  Is his mind so
>> feeble as to have no recollection of how he overturned a major result in
>> CS 36 times before?  Or maybe his delusions are so strong that they can
>> sustain this degree of cognitive dissonance for years?  It's bad faith
>> or serious mental health issues.
>>
>> If I'm honest, I suspect it's the latter, but then what does it say
>> about my still talking to him?  Resolving my own cognitive dissonance
>> requires I pretend it's bad faith.
>>
>>> You have an x86 emulator. You modify it with infinite cycle detection
>>> logic,
>>> and create a reasonably accurate halt decider. But of course it
>>> chokes on
>>> H_Hat<H_Hat>as it must do.
>>> However if you are not very well educated in thse matters, you might
>>> examine
>>> H for errors. And it's not obvious where the error is. The infinite
>>> cycle detection
>>> logic holds up in the vast majority of cases, after all. And the code
>>> is quite
>>> complicated.
>>
>> Do you really think he has some complicated cycle detection code?  No,
>> he has code /outside of H/ that spots one obvious and simple pattern.
>> His H just calls it's first argument passing it the second.  The
>> "halt-detecting OS" (the modified emulator) spots the recursion (which
>> is, of course, there) > and aborts H.  At various times, I think he's
>> assumed that he could put this detection code into H and it would not
>> matter (obviously wrong) or that false is correct because the code
>> without the abort is indeed non-halting.
>>
>> Most importantly -- there no nested simulation.  Maybe he tired, but I
>> suspect he simply could not work out how to make the simulator
>> re-entrant.

> That was the hardest part. Each simulation has its own RAM, stack and
> machine registers. I have done this kind of operating system level
> programming before.
>

You can see the different stack frames:

machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
....[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
....[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
....[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
....[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
....[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
....[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] (rewritten twice)

<rCJ8K.608962$7F2.17853@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30816&group=comp.theory#30816

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(rewritten_twi
ce)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <rCJ8K.608962$7F2.17853@fx12.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 22:36:07 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5018
 by: Richard Damon - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 02:36 UTC

On 4/22/22 4:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>> before you
>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>
>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect for H
>>>>> to report this.
>>>>
>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of exhibiting
>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not halt has
>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in addressing it.
>>>
>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>> else that disagrees.
>>
>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>
> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not computationally
> equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).

Then the input to H was built wrong! PERIOD.

Remember,the QUESTION being originally asked is does the computation M
applied to w Halt or not, which in this particular case becomes does H^
applied to the description of H^ halt or not.

Answering about some 'other' input, is like saying you have 1 dog when
someone asks how many cats you own.

>
> It is a very very weird case that these two are not computationally
> equivalent, none-the-less it is a verified fact that they are not
> computationally equivalent. This fact can only be verified by someone
> with sufficient technical competence:

Then you are answering the wrong question. Again, the QUESTION being
asked is what does H^ do when applied to its own description.

If that isn't what applying H to H^> <H^>

>
> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
> the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
> translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
> the halting problem is required.
>

So, to ask the question that you have previously refused to answer, What
do we need to do to ask H about the question we wanted, namely the
behavior of H^ applied to the description of H^.

That is the question from the halting problem.

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ last step of my proof ] ( Mind Reader ? )

<ocadnbIhCsHk9_7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30817&group=comp.theory#30817

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:54:49 -0500
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:54:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_last_step_of_my_proof_]_(_Mind_Reader_
? )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_adnYWTXbMhSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmla3udg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QKydnXjgE7s6dPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rrx52t8.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <77ydnayZOcEouv__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkws3o5g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1JGdnXgxyIUUlv7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3v40e$75q$1@dont-email.me> <7pGdnV16vbppi_7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3v7fb$vvr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ocadnbIhCsHk9_7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JtkhJGCk7Dz0C6e+xRynD7wEvRoiQZTrxLJ0L7AsWD15r0oE4cvxS5wnNvWUmPshdOsPq9pxe2qUme0!/g9Sia/N3XRGslGZ46+Tjp0ep30txMrscqXFCI+qEmd402zy/eRVVd1ODEACkE6FKHs87VOSBhd/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5556
 by: olcott - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 02:54 UTC

On 4/22/2022 4:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-22 14:58, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 3:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-22 14:09, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 8:23 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 6:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still, I expect there's a few years more chatting to be done
>>>>>>>>> before you
>>>>>>>>> get to an editor's day.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People here have gotten the conventional halting problem dogma so
>>>>>>>> ingrained in their psyche that they believe that even when it is
>>>>>>>> proven to be a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) specifies a
>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations it is somehow incorrect
>>>>>>>> for H
>>>>>>>> to report this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts.  The problem of
>>>>>>> exhibiting
>>>>>>> an H such that H(X,Y) == false if, and only if, X(Y) does not
>>>>>>> halt has
>>>>>>> not gone away.  It's called the halting problem.  There are famous
>>>>>>> theorems about it.  At one time you were interested in addressing
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) specifies a non-halting
>>>>>> sequence of configurations on the basis of its actual behavior then
>>>>>> this actual behavior supersedes and overrules anything any everything
>>>>>> else that disagrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halting problem is about H(P,P) being right about P(P), not about
>>>>> anything else you might find to waffle about.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem *is not* about P(P) when P(P) is not
>>>> computationally equivalent to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>> H(P,P).
>>>
>>> This is simply an ignorant statement. Rather, it was initially an
>>> ignorant statement but since there have been many attempts made to
>>> remedy your ignorance, it has since graduated to a
>>> willfully-ignorant-grasping-at-straws-statement.
>>>
>>> A halt decider is a Turing Machine which computes the halting
>>> *function*.
>>>
>>> The halting function is a mathematical function. it is not defined in
>>> terms of 'inputs' or 'simulators'. It is not defined in terms of halt
>>> deciders at all since a function is logically prior to any algorithm
>>> for computing that function.
>>>
>>> The halting *function* is simply a mathematical mapping from
>>> computations to {yes, no} based on whether they halt.
>>>
>>
>> No. A decider computes the mapping from (finite string) inputs to an
>> accept or reject state.
>
> I was defining the halting *function*. That is an entirely different
> animal from a halt *decider*. Do you still not grasp the distinction
> between a Turing Machine and the function which it computes?

So the halt decider computes the halting *function* on some other basis
than what its input actually specifies (What is it a mind reader?)
You really don't think these things through do you?

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor