Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

APL hackers do it in the quad.


devel / comp.theory / Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

SubjectAuthor
* What if a cat barks?olcott
+* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|+* What if a cat barks?Ben Bacarisse
||`* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| +* What if a cat barks?olcott
|| |`* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| | `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|| |  `* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| |   `* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|| |    `* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| |     `* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|| |      +- What if a cat barks?Daniel Pehoushek
|| |      `* What if a cat barks?wij
|| |       `* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| |        `* What if a cat barks?wij
|| |         `- What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| `* What if a cat barks?Ben Bacarisse
||  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||   `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Malcolm McLean
||    |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  |`- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Ben Bacarisse
||    |  |+- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Malcolm McLean
||    |  | +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Ben Bacarisse
||    |  | |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  | | `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    |  | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Malcolm McLean
||    |  |   `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Ben Bacarisse
||     `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|`* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
| `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  +* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  |`- What if a cat barks?Daniel Pehoushek
|  +* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|  |`* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  | +* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|  | |`* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  | | `- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|  | `- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|  `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|   `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|    +* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|    |`* What if a cat barks?olcott
|    | `* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|    |  `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|    |   `- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|    `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|     `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|      `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|       `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|        `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|         `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|          `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|           `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|            +- What if a cat barks?Daniel Pehoushek
|            `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|             `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
|              +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]André G. Isaak
|              |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
|              | +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]Richard Damon
|              | |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |   `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |    `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |     `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |      `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |       `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |        `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |         `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |          `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |           `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |            `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |             `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |              `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)olcott
|              | |               +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteChris M. Thomasson
|              | |               |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteJeff Barnett
|              | |               | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)Ben Bacarisse
|              | |               |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(Bolcott
|              | |               |  |+* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  ||`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)olcott
|              | |               |  || `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(BBen Bacarisse
|              | |               |  | +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  | |`- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteDaniel Pehoushek
|              | |               |  | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(kolcott
|              | |               |  |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  |+* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |               |  |  ||`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  || `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)olcott
|              | |               |  |  ||  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  ||   `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |               |  |  ||    `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  ||     `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dolcott
|              | |               |  |  |`- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteDaniel Pehoushek
|              | |               |  |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(kBen Bacarisse
|              | |               |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteJeff Barnett
|              | |               `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]André G. Isaak
|              `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]Richard Damon
+* What if a cat barks?wij
+* What if a cat barks?Malcolm McLean
+- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
+* What if a cat barks? [ How can a cat bark? ]olcott
`* What if a cat barks?Peter

Pages:12345678
Re: What if a cat barks?

<a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17141&group=comp.theory#17141

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1f7:: with SMTP id x23mr5568861qkn.160.1624382040078;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:3c3:: with SMTP id t3mr6351746ybp.295.1624382039722;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=58.115.187.102; posting-account=QJ9iEwoAAACyjkKjQAWQOwSEULNvZZkc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.115.187.102
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com> <UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>
<7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com> <hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com> <tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com> <4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
From: wyni...@gmail.com (wij)
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:14:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: wij - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:13 UTC

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:08:26 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is definitely
> >>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
> >>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the embedded halt
> >>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that this
> >>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> >>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a
> >>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> >>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a computation
> >>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
> >>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
> >>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
> >>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the function
> >>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
> >>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
> >>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like searching for a set of
> >>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code analyzer is sufficient.
> >>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
> >>>>
> >>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> >>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>> {
> >>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> >>>> if (Input_Halts)
> >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
> >>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could implement H.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't stand such a test".
> >>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>
> >>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P..
> >>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
> >>>
> >> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
> >> seem ridiculously stupid.
> >>
> >> procedure compute_g(i):
> >> if f(i, i) == 0 then
> >> return 0
> >> else
> >> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
> >> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> >> void P(u32 x)
> >> {
> >> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> >> if (Input_Halts)
> >> HERE: goto HERE;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> >> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> >> }
> >>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will make H
> >>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in C-like
> >> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
> >> must be identical.
> >
> > H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
> > Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
> >
> Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
> If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
>
> If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
> from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
> proves that it is wrong.

Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
> proves that it is wrong.

> >>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
> >>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in the same way.
> >>>
> >>> From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized' too soon
> >>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system makes
> >>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating system' (all) has to
> >>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
> >>>
> >> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
> >> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
> >> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
> >> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > You fabricated a halt-decider which only works in your head.
> >
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<5dc2ec90-255e-4f5b-a862-66112989b135n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17142&group=comp.theory#17142

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e29:: with SMTP id d9mr4623617qtw.136.1624382201346;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:bcb:: with SMTP id 194mr6362073ybl.32.1624382201182;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fdc3.netnews.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=58.115.187.102; posting-account=QJ9iEwoAAACyjkKjQAWQOwSEULNvZZkc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.115.187.102
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com> <UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>
<7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com> <hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com> <tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com> <4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5dc2ec90-255e-4f5b-a862-66112989b135n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
From: wyni...@gmail.com (wij)
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:16:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 9449
 by: wij - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:16 UTC

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:14:01 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:08:26 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> > On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> > >> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is definitely
> > >>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
> > >>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the embedded halt
> > >>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that this
> > >>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> > >>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a
> > >>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> > >>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a computation
> > >>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
> > >>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
> > >>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> > >>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
> > >>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the function
> > >>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
> > >>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
> > >>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like searching for a set of
> > >>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code analyzer is sufficient.
> > >>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for..
> > >>>>
> > >>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> > >>>> void P(u32 x)
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> > >>>> if (Input_Halts)
> > >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> int main()
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> > >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
> > >>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could implement H.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't stand such a test".
> > >>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> > >>>>>> minds." Einstein
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> > >>>> minds." Einstein
> > >>>
> > >>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P.
> > >>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
> > >>>
> > >> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
> > >> seem ridiculously stupid.
> > >>
> > >> procedure compute_g(i):
> > >> if f(i, i) == 0 then
> > >> return 0
> > >> else
> > >> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
> > >> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> > >> void P(u32 x)
> > >> {
> > >> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> > >> if (Input_Halts)
> > >> HERE: goto HERE;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> int main()
> > >> {
> > >> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> > >> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> > >> }
> > >>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will make H
> > >>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in C-like
> > >> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
> > >> must be identical.
> > >
> > > H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
> > > Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
> > >
> > Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
> > If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
> >
> > If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
> > from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
> > proves that it is wrong.
> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
> > proves that it is wrong.
>
> > >>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
> > >>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in the same way.
> > >>>
> > >>> From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized' too soon
> > >>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system makes
> > >>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating system' (all) has to
> > >>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
> > >>>
> > >> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
> > >> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
> > >> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
> > >> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
> > >> --
> > >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> > >>
> > >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> > >> minds." Einstein
> > >
> > > You fabricated a halt-decider which only works in your head.
> > >
> > --
> > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >
> > "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> > minds." Einstein


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<ap-dnU8KFa9jhk_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17143&group=comp.theory#17143

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:21:02 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com>
<UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>
<7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com>
<hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com>
<tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com>
<4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:21:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ap-dnU8KFa9jhk_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 174
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-6E3y2+SXgsAhPCbD7EImCMn9f69VVFTiR0B2BfEX/FJCAU3942ltAhUmjCQ5smQIrsTngw8Vcv0cN8h!+/rzmI6+g6ZRHgpbFH1/YIUSzSWsJGtijU2yjjI/hiLQLUNleogb7unjgGLi5xOXfL1Qrzgzj+A=
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: 8664
 by: olcott - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:21 UTC

On 6/22/2021 12:13 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:08:26 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is definitely
>>>>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the embedded halt
>>>>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that this
>>>>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a
>>>>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a computation
>>>>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
>>>>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
>>>>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
>>>>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the function
>>>>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
>>>>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
>>>>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like searching for a set of
>>>>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code analyzer is sufficient.
>>>>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>>>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
>>>>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could implement H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't stand such a test".
>>>>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P.
>>>>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
>>>>>
>>>> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
>>>> seem ridiculously stupid.
>>>>
>>>> procedure compute_g(i):
>>>> if f(i, i) == 0 then
>>>> return 0
>>>> else
>>>> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>> {
>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>>> }
>>>>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will make H
>>>>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in C-like
>>>> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
>>>> must be identical.
>>>
>>> H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
>>> Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
>>>
>> Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
>> If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
>>
>> If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
>> from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
>> proves that it is wrong.
>
> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'

Of course H does not do what P exactly does, H is a simulator and P is
not a simulator.

>> proves that it is wrong.
>
>>>>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
>>>>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in the same way.
>>>>>
>>>>> From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized' too soon
>>>>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system makes
>>>>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating system' (all) has to
>>>>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
>>>>>
>>>> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
>>>> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
>>>> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
>>>> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>
>>> You fabricated a halt-decider which only works in your head.
>>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<ap-dnU4KFa_HgU_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17144&group=comp.theory#17144

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:22:34 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com> <UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com> <7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com> <hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com> <tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com> <4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com> <5dc2ec90-255e-4f5b-a862-66112989b135n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:22:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5dc2ec90-255e-4f5b-a862-66112989b135n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ap-dnU4KFa_HgU_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 176
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ZyYmvzoWP6PCscoBJbOrH24Sv5shdub5zn5hhh/xj3you1POsTCvtJWOoaA+lF8bOYO6annN20WqNcL!asj69j+ZHXBaT1EuazUv2rVbFmi58MsrYoS6fpQ81HnFxBEDWlTe1zplM81mowpkqblu+a/Tulc=
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: 9092
 by: olcott - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:22 UTC

On 6/22/2021 12:16 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:14:01 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:08:26 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the embedded halt
>>>>>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that this
>>>>>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a
>>>>>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a computation
>>>>>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
>>>>>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
>>>>>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
>>>>>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the function
>>>>>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
>>>>>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
>>>>>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like searching for a set of
>>>>>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code analyzer is sufficient.
>>>>>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>>>>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
>>>>>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could implement H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't stand such a test".
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P.
>>>>>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
>>>>> seem ridiculously stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> procedure compute_g(i):
>>>>> if f(i, i) == 0 then
>>>>> return 0
>>>>> else
>>>>> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>> {
>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>>>> }
>>>>>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will make H
>>>>>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in C-like
>>>>> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
>>>>> must be identical.
>>>>
>>>> H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
>>>> Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
>>>>
>>> Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
>>> If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
>>>
>>> If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
>>> from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
>>> proves that it is wrong.
>> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
>>> proves that it is wrong.
>>
>>>>>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
>>>>>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in the same way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized' too soon
>>>>>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system makes
>>>>>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating system' (all) has to
>>>>>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
>>>>> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
>>>>> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
>>>>> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>
>>>> You fabricated a halt-decider which only works in your head.
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>
>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>> minds." Einstein
>
> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
> proves that it is wrong.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<satao3$gjk$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17145&group=comp.theory#17145

 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: What if a cat barks?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:38:57 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 303
Message-ID: <satao3$gjk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <saqlhk$860$1@dont-email.me>
<tZOdneTmHpHNnUz9nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarcip$jgd$1@dont-email.me>
<zZOdnUG2JPuxokz9nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarhu7$f83$1@dont-email.me>
<E8Wdnezrd-inyUz9nZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sat46g$afu$1@dont-email.me>
<4I-dnW6siND5hU_9nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:38:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ea548b1cd3c6b214635b4c54a6c75056";
logging-data="17012"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19glB+onPWMC3Z/xEQHnitM"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4iti7KnelJLu8E9nRKpoldE4KsA=
In-Reply-To: <4I-dnW6siND5hU_9nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:38 UTC

On 2021-06-22 11:05, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 11:47 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-06-21 21:09, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2021 9:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-06-21 19:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2021 7:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-06-21 15:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 1:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-06-20 23:04, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>>>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As long as he's just hearing them bark, we're probably fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's when the barking cats start telling him to do things (like
>>>>>>>> kill neighbours, steal catnip, or conquer Liechtenstein) that we
>>>>>>>> really need to worry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The point is that the mere intuition about the halting behavior
>>>>>>> of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is superseded by meticulous sound deductive
>>>>>>> inference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
>>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can that possibly be "self-evident" when it doesn't even
>>>>>> explain what "its simulation" means. Its simulation of/by what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We could simplify this and say that any computation that never
>>>>> halts unless this computation is aborted is a computation that
>>>>> never halts.
>>>>
>>>> That's no better. A computation which is aborted doesn't halt.
>>>> 'Halt' means to reach one of the final states. If you abort
>>>> something it doesn't reach a final state. But the simulator itself can.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When we are trying to determine whether or not an infinite loop is an
>>> infinite loop we can debug step through this code and see that it
>>> endlessly repeats and there is no escape from this endless repetition
>>> in this code. It is not really that hard.
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>>
>
> It explains the details of how a computation that must be aborted by the
> halt decider to prevent the infinite execution of this computation <is>
> a computation that never halts.

Which, once again, has nothing to do with what I wrote.

>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>> The ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a
>>>>>>> computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that were self-evident, you wouldn't have so many people
>>>>>> pointing out to you that it is simply wrong. Things can't be both
>>>>>> wrong and self-evident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That people simply don't want to bother to pay enough attention to
>>>>> see that I am right is not actually any rebuttal at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Impossibly false" is a meaningless expression. No journal is
>>>>>> going to take you seriously if this phrase appears anywhere in
>>>>>> your work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I improved this. I now call it the conclusion of sound deduction,
>>>>> which means exactly the same thing as impossibly false.
>>>>
>>>> So where is the sound deduction from which you reach the above
>>>> conclusion? You start with two premises, one of which is too vague
>>>> to be interpreted and the other of which is simply false. That's not
>>>> how deductively sound arguments work.
>>>
>>> We really have to look at this in terms of H and P because there is
>>> no other possible way to make sure that we examine all the details
>>> when we try to imagine what a Turing machine might do.
>>
>> Which doesn't answer my question. Where is your 'sound deductive
>> argument'?
>>
>
> (a) Every computation P that never halts unless the halt decider H
> aborts this computation is a computation that never halts.
>
> (b) X is a computation that never halts unless it is aborted by its halt
> decider.
>
> ∴ (c) X is a computation that is correctly decided to be a computation
> that never halts.

Premise (b) is false, so this is not a 'sound deductive argument'

>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides
>>>>>>> its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite chain of invocations that is
>>>>>>> terminated at its third invocation. The first invocation of Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the first element of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is common knowledge that when any invocation of an infinite
>>>>>>> chain of invocations is terminated that the whole chain
>>>>>>> terminates. That the first element of this infinite chain
>>>>>>> terminates after its third element has been terminated does not
>>>>>>> entail that this first element is an actual terminating computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. It isn't "common knowledge". It is simply false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will make a common knowledge concrete example:
>>>>> Infinite recursion is an infinite sequence of invocations right?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but there is no infinite recursion (or recursion period) in
>>>> the Linz example.
>>>>
>>>>> If any element of the infinite sequence of invocations of infinite
>>>>> recursion is aborted then the whole sequence stops right?
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily. That depends entirely on what is meant by 'abort'.
>>>>
>>>>> If the third invocation of the infinite sequence of invocations of
>>>>> infinite recursion is aborted then the whole sequence stops right?
>>>>
>>>> No. The third invocation is aborted. The simulator itself continues
>>>> to run and is able to halt.
>>>>
>>>>> Was it really that hard to see the above three steps on the basis
>>>>> of my claim of common knowledge?
>>>>
>>>> Things that you believe and 'common knowledge' are not the same thing.
>>>>
>>>>>> And if the simulation is terminated after the third call to Ĥ, the
>>>>>> you don't have an infinite chain of calls. You have a chain of
>>>>>> three calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the halt decider is analyzing the behavior stipulated by a
>>>>> finite string it is incorrect for the halt decider to conflate its
>>>>> own behavior in this analysis.
>>>>
>>>> And I am not conflating them. When you abort the simulation that
>>>> doesn't entail aborting the simulator. You conflate them by
>>>> concluding that the topmost program doesn't halt based on what
>>>> happens to the program it is simulating.
>>>>
>>>>> The question that the halt decider is answering is whether or not a
>>>>> pure simulation/execution of the input must be aborted to prevent
>>>>> the infinite execution of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the first element to be an actual terminating computation it
>>>>>>> must terminate without any of the elements of the infinite chain
>>>>>>> of invocations being terminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is just plain silly.
>>>>>
>>>>> See my infinite recursion example above.
>>>>
>>>> As I said, the above is just plain silly.
>>>>
>>>>>> If some program H simulates another program Y along with an input
>>>>>> string but has the ability to terminate a simulation, then there
>>>>>> are three possibilities:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) The simulation is allowed to continue until Y reaches one of
>>>>>> its final states. In such a case we can say that Y halts. Since Y
>>>>>> halts, H can also halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B) The simulation is allowed to continue forever, but it never
>>>>>> reaches a final state. The simulation continues forever. In this
>>>>>> case, Y doesn't halt. H therefore also doesn't halt. Of course,
>>>>>> this option would be difficult to empirically verify since we
>>>>>> can't actually observe something running for an infinite amount of
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C) H decides to discontinue the simulation. In this case the
>>>>>> simulation neither halts nor runs forever. It may be that that Y
>>>>>> is non-halting, or it may be that H simply discontinued the
>>>>>> simulation prematurely. But in either of these two cases, H can halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have said so very many hundreds of times now that you really
>>>>> should not have made such a terrible mistake with part C
>>>>
>>>> There is no mistake in C.
>>>
>>>
>>> C) H decides to discontinue the simulation.
>>> This is very terribly incorrect
>>>
>>> H MUST stop its simulation of P or P never halts
>>
>> Which is subsumed under option C. The above enumerates all logical
>> possibilities.
>>
>
> Then you needs a (D)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<YuOdnXMSQcOgqk_9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17146&group=comp.theory#17146

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:17:17 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <saqlhk$860$1@dont-email.me> <tZOdneTmHpHNnUz9nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarcip$jgd$1@dont-email.me> <zZOdnUG2JPuxokz9nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarhu7$f83$1@dont-email.me> <E8Wdnezrd-inyUz9nZ2dnUU7-cHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sat46g$afu$1@dont-email.me> <4I-dnW6siND5hU_9nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <satao3$gjk$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:17:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <satao3$gjk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <YuOdnXMSQcOgqk_9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 339
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xwL9ydAoTvbN9hhthbMnGo7YPZasW7Y3Ezl1MGhRLiX/qgRdfjHnXzU5Y8q/3BF9apG3NHdqAQfWbA0!CtNS8iDuFqOSqoyX8tz2e+lVV2tTb6hWA4JkpBRcfVotDZkQmNFKsWuBrW9YWOTB5i6WBYsORpM=
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: 15257
 by: olcott - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:17 UTC

On 6/22/2021 1:38 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-06-22 11:05, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2021 11:47 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-06-21 21:09, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2021 9:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-06-21 19:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 7:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-06-21 15:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 1:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-06-20 23:04, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>>>>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As long as he's just hearing them bark, we're probably fine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's when the barking cats start telling him to do things (like
>>>>>>>>> kill neighbours, steal catnip, or conquer Liechtenstein) that
>>>>>>>>> we really need to worry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that the mere intuition about the halting behavior
>>>>>>>> of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is superseded by meticulous sound deductive
>>>>>>>> inference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
>>>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can that possibly be "self-evident" when it doesn't even
>>>>>>> explain what "its simulation" means. Its simulation of/by what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We could simplify this and say that any computation that never
>>>>>> halts unless this computation is aborted is a computation that
>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's no better. A computation which is aborted doesn't halt.
>>>>> 'Halt' means to reach one of the final states. If you abort
>>>>> something it doesn't reach a final state. But the simulator itself
>>>>> can.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we are trying to determine whether or not an infinite loop is
>>>> an infinite loop we can debug step through this code and see that it
>>>> endlessly repeats and there is no escape from this endless
>>>> repetition in this code. It is not really that hard.
>>>
>>> Which has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>>>
>>
>> It explains the details of how a computation that must be aborted by
>> the halt decider to prevent the infinite execution of this computation
>> <is> a computation that never halts.
>
> Which, once again, has nothing to do with what I wrote.
>
>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>> The ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a
>>>>>>>> computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that were self-evident, you wouldn't have so many people
>>>>>>> pointing out to you that it is simply wrong. Things can't be both
>>>>>>> wrong and self-evident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That people simply don't want to bother to pay enough attention to
>>>>>> see that I am right is not actually any rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Impossibly false" is a meaningless expression. No journal is
>>>>>>> going to take you seriously if this phrase appears anywhere in
>>>>>>> your work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I improved this. I now call it the conclusion of sound deduction,
>>>>>> which means exactly the same thing as impossibly false.
>>>>>
>>>>> So where is the sound deduction from which you reach the above
>>>>> conclusion? You start with two premises, one of which is too vague
>>>>> to be interpreted and the other of which is simply false. That's
>>>>> not how deductively sound arguments work.
>>>>
>>>> We really have to look at this in terms of H and P because there is
>>>> no other possible way to make sure that we examine all the details
>>>> when we try to imagine what a Turing machine might do.
>>>
>>> Which doesn't answer my question. Where is your 'sound deductive
>>> argument'?
>>>
>>
>> (a) Every computation P that never halts unless the halt decider H
>> aborts this computation is a computation that never halts.
>>
>> (b) X is a computation that never halts unless it is aborted by its
>> halt decider.
>>
>> ∴ (c) X is a computation that is correctly decided to be a computation
>> that never halts.
>
> Premise (b) is false, so this is not a 'sound deductive argument'
>

In this case premise (b) is stipulated thus impossibly false.

In the case of the simulation of P it is verified on the basis of the
x86 execution trace of B, thus an established verified fact.

>>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides
>>>>>>>> its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite chain of invocations that is
>>>>>>>> terminated at its third invocation. The first invocation of Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the first element of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is common knowledge that when any invocation of an infinite
>>>>>>>> chain of invocations is terminated that the whole chain
>>>>>>>> terminates. That the first element of this infinite chain
>>>>>>>> terminates after its third element has been terminated does not
>>>>>>>> entail that this first element is an actual terminating
>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. It isn't "common knowledge". It is simply false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will make a common knowledge concrete example:
>>>>>> Infinite recursion is an infinite sequence of invocations right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, but there is no infinite recursion (or recursion period) in
>>>>> the Linz example.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If any element of the infinite sequence of invocations of infinite
>>>>>> recursion is aborted then the whole sequence stops right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily. That depends entirely on what is meant by 'abort'.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If the third invocation of the infinite sequence of invocations of
>>>>>> infinite recursion is aborted then the whole sequence stops right?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. The third invocation is aborted. The simulator itself continues
>>>>> to run and is able to halt.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Was it really that hard to see the above three steps on the basis
>>>>>> of my claim of common knowledge?
>>>>>
>>>>> Things that you believe and 'common knowledge' are not the same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if the simulation is terminated after the third call to Ĥ,
>>>>>>> the you don't have an infinite chain of calls. You have a chain
>>>>>>> of three calls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the halt decider is analyzing the behavior stipulated by a
>>>>>> finite string it is incorrect for the halt decider to conflate its
>>>>>> own behavior in this analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I am not conflating them. When you abort the simulation that
>>>>> doesn't entail aborting the simulator. You conflate them by
>>>>> concluding that the topmost program doesn't halt based on what
>>>>> happens to the program it is simulating.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The question that the halt decider is answering is whether or not
>>>>>> a pure simulation/execution of the input must be aborted to
>>>>>> prevent the infinite execution of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the first element to be an actual terminating computation it
>>>>>>>> must terminate without any of the elements of the infinite chain
>>>>>>>> of invocations being terminated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is just plain silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See my infinite recursion example above.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I said, the above is just plain silly.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If some program H simulates another program Y along with an input
>>>>>>> string but has the ability to terminate a simulation, then there
>>>>>>> are three possibilities:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A) The simulation is allowed to continue until Y reaches one of
>>>>>>> its final states. In such a case we can say that Y halts. Since Y
>>>>>>> halts, H can also halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> B) The simulation is allowed to continue forever, but it never
>>>>>>> reaches a final state. The simulation continues forever. In this
>>>>>>> case, Y doesn't halt. H therefore also doesn't halt. Of course,
>>>>>>> this option would be difficult to empirically verify since we
>>>>>>> can't actually observe something running for an infinite amount
>>>>>>> of time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> C) H decides to discontinue the simulation. In this case the
>>>>>>> simulation neither halts nor runs forever. It may be that that Y
>>>>>>> is non-halting, or it may be that H simply discontinued the
>>>>>>> simulation prematurely. But in either of these two cases, H can
>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have said so very many hundreds of times now that you really
>>>>>> should not have made such a terrible mistake with part C
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no mistake in C.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> C) H decides to discontinue the simulation.
>>>> This is very terribly incorrect
>>>>
>>>> H MUST stop its simulation of P or P never halts
>>>
>>> Which is subsumed under option C. The above enumerates all logical
>>> possibilities.
>>>
>>
>> Then you needs a (D)
>
> Why?
>
>> (C) H MUST stop its simulation of P or P never halts
>>
>> (D) H stops its simulation of P for some other reason.
>
> Your (C) and (D) are both covered by my (C).
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<satdah$an0$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17147&group=comp.theory#17147

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: chris.m....@gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:22:56 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <satdah$an0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<-JidnS57a7VWqkz9nZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sareou$qdq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<zZOdnUC2JPvxokz9nZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarf5p$qdq$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<opbAI.48766$N%.30373@fx05.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Host: NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Chris M. Thomasson - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:22 UTC

On 6/21/2021 6:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/21 9:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/21/2021 6:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2021 8:35 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2021 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2021 7:15 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 4:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's making a bad analogy.  The correct analogy is that /assuming/
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> a cat barks leads to a contradiction so we must reject the
>>>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He can see the contradiction that assuming a halt decider leads to
>>>>>>> (at
>>>>>>> least he claimed to be able to see it) so what to do?  He has to
>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>> that he has a barking cat -- a halt decider that works at least
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> confounding case.  Of course he doesn't, but he has to find some
>>>>>>> way to
>>>>>>> keep the discussion going (he only cares about keeping people
>>>>>>> talking).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahhh. Good. Okay, well I am still wondering why, when I tell him to
>>>>>> run his "halt decider" against an unknown, black box program
>>>>>> created by somebody else... Well, he seems to get pissed off.
>>>>>> Afaict, his decider only works on programs that he already knows
>>>>>> are, decided. Cheating 101? Or what? ;^o
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not actually a contradiction at all if one is paying very
>>>>> close attention. Since people want me to be wrong they don't want to
>>>>> pay enough attention to see that I am right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I give you a black box program, can you decide if it halts or not?
>>>
>>> Within the context of the halting problem that is a very stupid question.
>>>
>>
>> Why? Does the program halt or not? You cannot tell. Get over it.
>
> Well, the problem is that Turing Machines CAN'T be black boxes. And the
> definition of the Halting Problem is that the decider is given a full
> description of the Turing Machine, which is basically like a full
> listing of the program.

Oh, sorry. I thought his x86 simulator would run an x86 program and
determine if it would halt or not. My bad. The assembled program would
have all the information he needs right? Or, would I have to give him
source code... Humm, I don't know. Does he have an assembler?

When I say "black box", I was basically referring to a program that
somebody else assembled into an executable.

His simulator, as-is, should be able to simulate any x86 program and
determine if it halts or not... Sound Kosher?

> Now, this works two ways, a PO needs to realize that his Halt Decider
> also can't avoid being examined, and thus H, if it answers, can't avoid
> giving that answer to H^, so that it can make the answer wrong.
>

Right.

Re: What if a cat barks?

<satdf3$an0$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17148&group=comp.theory#17148

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: chris.m....@gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 12:25:23 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <satdf3$an0$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sasqnu$1ifm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Chris M. Thomasson - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:25 UTC

On 6/22/2021 7:05 AM, Peter wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>
> If your definition of "cat" just refers to its DNA, then a barking cat
> is just a cat making an unusual (for a cat) noise.
>
> But note that the word "cat" has been in use for many years before DNA
> was even known to exist and during that time the definition of "cat"
> might well have made reference to what vocalizations it could produce.
>
>

Perhaps something like:

https://youtu.be/kkwiQmGWK4c

;^D

Re: What if a cat barks?

<4FtAI.84230$9a1.46348@fx38.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17149&group=comp.theory#17149

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx38.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <saqlhk$860$1@dont-email.me>
<tZOdneTmHpHNnUz9nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarcip$jgd$1@dont-email.me>
<zZOdnUG2JPuxokz9nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<qPbAI.103128$od.21136@fx15.iad>
<lq-dnc018bhg10z9nZ2dnUU7-UfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LpjAI.41103$v01.24433@fx07.iad>
<97mdnWygnebNb0z9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <97mdnWygnebNb0z9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <4FtAI.84230$9a1.46348@fx38.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:40:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6763
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:40 UTC

On 6/22/21 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/21 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2021 9:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/21 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2021 7:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> How can that possibly be "self-evident" when it doesn't even explain
>>>>>> what "its simulation" means. Its simulation of/by what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We could simplify this and say that any computation that never halts
>>>>> unless this computation is aborted is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which with the RIGHT definitions of the words is true. The problem is
>>>> you don't use the right defintions of the words.
>>>>
>>>> Stated more clearly, if a simulation of a computation would never end
>>>> unless the simulator of THAT simulation needs to halt it, then the
>>>> computation would never halt.
>>>
>>> That stupidly ignores:
>>>
>>> When any element of infinitely nested simulations or invocation of the
>>> infinite chain of invocations of infinite recursion is terminated then
>>> the whole chain terminates,
>>
>> Which is a FALSE statement. Where do you get this from?
>
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
>   Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   u32 Input_Would_Halt2 = H((u32)Infinite_Recursion, 1);
>   Output("Input_Would_Halt2 = ", Input_Would_Halt2);
> }
>
> _Infinite_Recursion()
> [00000acc](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000acd](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000acf](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000ad2](01)  50              push eax
> [00000ad3](05)  e8f4ffffff      call 00000acc
> [00000ad8](03)  83c404          add esp,+04
> [00000adb](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000adc](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0017) [00000adc]
>
> _main()
> [00000c1c](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000c1d](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000c1f](01)  51              push ecx
> [00000c20](02)  6a01            push +01
> [00000c22](05)  68cc0a0000      push 00000acc
> [00000c27](05)  e840fdffff      call 0000096c
> [00000c2c](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00000c2f](03)  8945fc          mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00000c32](03)  8b45fc          mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00000c35](01)  50              push eax
> [00000c36](05)  6857030000      push 00000357
> [00000c3b](05)  e84cf7ffff      call 0000038c
> [00000c40](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00000c43](02)  33c0            xor eax,eax
> [00000c45](02)  8be5            mov esp,ebp
> [00000c47](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000c48](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0045) [00000c48]
>
> ===============================
> ...[00000c1c][001016b4][00000000](01)  55              push ebp
> ...[00000c1d][001016b4][00000000](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000c1f][001016b0][00000000](01)  51              push ecx
> ...[00000c20][001016ac][00000001](02)  6a01            push +01
> ...[00000c22][001016a8][00000acc](05)  68cc0a0000      push 00000acc
> ...[00000c27][001016a4][00000c2c](05)  e840fdffff      call 0000096c
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:acc
> ...[00000acc][00211754][00211758](01)  55              push ebp
> ...[00000acd][00211754][00211758](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000acf][00211754][00211758](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ad2][00211750][00000001](01)  50              push eax
> ...[00000ad3][0021174c][00000ad8](05)  e8f4ffffff      call 00000acc
> ...[00000acc][00211748][00211754](01)  55              push ebp
> ...[00000acd][00211748][00211754](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000acf][00211748][00211754](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ad2][00211744][00000001](01)  50              push eax
> ...[00000ad3][00211740][00000ad8](05)  e8f4ffffff      call 00000acc
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> ...[00000c2c][001016b0][00000000](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> ...[00000c2f][001016b0][00000000](03)  8945fc          mov [ebp-04],eax
> ...[00000c32][001016b0][00000000](03)  8b45fc          mov eax,[ebp-04]
> ...[00000c35][001016ac][00000000](01)  50              push eax
> ...[00000c36][001016a8][00000357](05)  6857030000      push 00000357
> ---[00000c3b][001016a8][00000357](05)  e84cf7ffff      call 0000038c
> Input_Would_Halt2 = 0
> ...[00000c40][001016b0][00000000](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> ...[00000c43][001016b0][00000000](02)  33c0            xor eax,eax
> ...[00000c45][001016b4][00000000](02)  8be5            mov esp,ebp
> ...[00000c47][001016b8][00100000](01)  5d              pop ebp
> ...[00000c48][001016bc][00000068](01)  c3              ret
> Number_of_User_Instructions(27)
> Number of Instructions Executed(1240)
>
>

Wrong case, here Halts isn't part of the loop. Proves nothing.

Re: What if a cat barks?

<9LtAI.393805$N_4.166991@fx36.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17150&group=comp.theory#17150

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx36.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com>
<UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>
<7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com>
<hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com>
<tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 166
Message-ID: <9LtAI.393805$N_4.166991@fx36.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:46:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6904
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:46 UTC

On 6/22/21 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the
>>>>>>> embedded halt
>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
>>>>>>> aborted is a
>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a
>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>>>> mediocre
>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the
>>>>>> function
>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
>>>>
>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like
>>>> searching for a set of
>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code
>>>> analyzer is sufficient.
>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
>>>
>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>> }
>>>
>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could
>>> implement H.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't
>>>>>> stand such a test".
>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>> mediocre
>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>> -- 
>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>
>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>> minds." Einstein
>>
>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P.
>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
>>
>
> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
> seem ridiculously stupid.
>
> procedure compute_g(i):
>   if f(i, i) == 0 then
>     return 0
>   else
>     loop forever    // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
>
> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>   if (Input_Halts)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> }
>
>
>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will
>> make H
>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in
>> C-like
>
> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
> must be identical.
>
>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in
>> the same way.
>>
>>  From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized'
>> too soon
>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system
>> makes
>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating
>> system' (all) has to
>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
>>
>
> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
>
>

BUT, you have to do it correctly. One thing that means is that you can't
'skip' over parts of the code. That gives you an incorrect graph for
what is the state transistion diagram of the machines.

Re: What if a cat barks?

<RPtAI.832779$nn2.227511@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17151&group=comp.theory#17151

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com>
<UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>
<7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com>
<hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com>
<tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com>
<4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <RPtAI.832779$nn2.227511@fx48.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:51:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7426
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:51 UTC

On 6/22/21 1:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the
>>>>>>>>> embedded halt
>>>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find
>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
>>>>>>>>> aborted is a
>>>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a
>>>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
>>>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
>>>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>>>>>> mediocre
>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
>>>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the
>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
>>>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
>>>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is
>>>>>> like searching for a set of
>>>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code
>>>>>> analyzer is sufficient.
>>>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
>>>>>
>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>> {
>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent
>>>>> nearly
>>>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could
>>>>> implement H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't
>>>>>>>> stand such a test".
>>>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>>>> mediocre
>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
>>>>> mediocre
>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>
>>>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P.
>>>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
>>>>
>>> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
>>> seem ridiculously stupid.
>>>
>>> procedure compute_g(i):
>>> if f(i, i) == 0 then
>>> return 0
>>> else
>>> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>> }
>>>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2)
>>>> will make H
>>>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in
>>>> C-like
>>> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
>>> must be identical.
>>
>> H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
>> Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
>>
>
> Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
> If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
>
> If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
> from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
> proves that it is wrong.
>
>

Except for the fact that YOUR simulation is not a correct simulation.

You 'simulation' includes transformation (that aren't valid the way you
do them) and thus are NOT really a pure simulation.

A proper simulation of P includes simulating the copy of H within in,
NOT jumping to what that simulator is simulating.

By your own claim that proper simulations can not differ says that this
transformation MUST be invalid, as the definitional simulation would be
showing what the simulated version of H is actually doing, not what it
is simulating.

Thus, by your own words, YOUR simulation is not correct.

Re: What if a cat barks?

<fRtAI.832780$nn2.410966@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17152&group=comp.theory#17152

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com>
<UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com>
<7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com>
<hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com>
<tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com>
<4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com>
<5dc2ec90-255e-4f5b-a862-66112989b135n@googlegroups.com>
<ap-dnU4KFa_HgU_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ap-dnU4KFa_HgU_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <fRtAI.832780$nn2.410966@fx48.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:52:59 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 1904
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:52 UTC

On 6/22/21 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:

>
> H is a simulator and P is not a simulator therefore if H did exactly
> what P does H would be wrong. H does show exactly what P does.
>

Why isn't P a simulator? it has ALL the code of a simulator inside of it
since it contains a complete copy of H.

You keep on forgetting that, Turing Machine, and their equivalent, are
FULLY self contained.

Re: What if a cat barks?

<TVtAI.65377$iY.38032@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17153&group=comp.theory#17153

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<-JidnS57a7VWqkz9nZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sareou$qdq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<zZOdnUC2JPvxokz9nZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarf5p$qdq$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<opbAI.48766$N%.30373@fx05.iad> <satdah$an0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <satdah$an0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <TVtAI.65377$iY.38032@fx41.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:57:54 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2562
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:57 UTC

On 6/22/21 3:22 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/21/2021 6:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> Well, the problem is that Turing Machines CAN'T be black boxes. And the
>> definition of the Halting Problem is that the decider is given a full
>> description of the Turing Machine, which is basically like a full
>> listing of the program.
>
> Oh, sorry. I thought his x86 simulator would run an x86 program and
> determine if it would halt or not. My bad. The assembled program would
> have all the information he needs right? Or, would I have to give him
> source code... Humm, I don't know. Does he have an assembler?
>
> When I say "black box", I was basically referring to a program that
> somebody else assembled into an executable.
>
> His simulator, as-is, should be able to simulate any x86 program and
> determine if it halts or not... Sound Kosher?
>
>
The problem is that the term 'black box' tend to mean something that you
can't look inside of, which means that his simulator couldn't get at the
object code of it.

A program that was a real black box would have its internals encrypted
and have test to make sure that it wasn't being 'spied' on before
decrypting itself. Of course, without support from the OS, or some
controlling program, things can't be perfect black boxes, just enough to
be a pain to look into.

Re: What if a cat barks?

<be3886ce-4c3b-400c-838b-849916d7c811n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17154&group=comp.theory#17154

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a703:: with SMTP id q3mr6933049qke.269.1624403280290;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:f30c:: with SMTP id c12mr1722505ybs.396.1624403280058;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!usenet.pasdenom.info!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 16:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <TVtAI.65377$iY.38032@fx41.iad>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:2b00:770c:a400:343a:4526:e601:388c;
posting-account=wr2KGQoAAADwR6kcaFpOhQvlGldc1Uke
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:2b00:770c:a400:343a:4526:e601:388c
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<-JidnS57a7VWqkz9nZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sareou$qdq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<zZOdnUC2JPvxokz9nZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarf5p$qdq$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<opbAI.48766$N%.30373@fx05.iad> <satdah$an0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TVtAI.65377$iY.38032@fx41.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <be3886ce-4c3b-400c-838b-849916d7c811n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
From: pehoush...@gmail.com (Daniel Pehoushek)
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:08:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Daniel Pehoushek - Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:07 UTC

bug report
the fly just now flew into my mouth
i captured the body between my thumb and right forefinger
the body of evidence is in a secure container that
may be stored for a finite time period
hubble on youtube is great
you have all done well
the universe is large
some reasoning seems
very very stupid

Re: What if a cat barks?

<ac3d4947-eca2-4194-a281-86c201d6f31bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17155&group=comp.theory#17155

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7d8e:: with SMTP id c14mr1435566qtd.350.1624408314047; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b44d:: with SMTP id c13mr8392892ybg.86.1624408313873; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ap-dnU4KFa_HgU_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=58.115.187.102; posting-account=QJ9iEwoAAACyjkKjQAWQOwSEULNvZZkc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.115.187.102
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com> <UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com> <7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com> <hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com> <tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com> <4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com> <5dc2ec90-255e-4f5b-a862-66112989b135n@googlegroups.com> <ap-dnU4KFa_HgU_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ac3d4947-eca2-4194-a281-86c201d6f31bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
From: wyni...@gmail.com (wij)
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:31:54 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 236
 by: wij - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:31 UTC

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:22:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 12:16 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:14:01 UTC+8, wij wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:08:26 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is definitely
> >>>>>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
> >>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the embedded halt
> >>>>>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that this
> >>>>>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> >>>>>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> >>>>>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a computation
> >>>>>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
> >>>>>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
> >>>>>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
> >>>>>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the function
> >>>>>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
> >>>>>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
> >>>>>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like searching for a set of
> >>>>>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code analyzer is sufficient.
> >>>>>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> >>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>> if (Input_Halts)
> >>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> >>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
> >>>>>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could implement H.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't stand such a test".
> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P.
> >>>>>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
> >>>>> seem ridiculously stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> procedure compute_g(i):
> >>>>> if f(i, i) == 0 then
> >>>>> return 0
> >>>>> else
> >>>>> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
> >>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> >>>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> >>>>> if (Input_Halts)
> >>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int main()
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> >>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will make H
> >>>>>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in C-like
> >>>>> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
> >>>>> must be identical.
> >>>>
> >>>> H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
> >>>> Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
> >>>>
> >>> Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
> >>> If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
> >>>
> >>> If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
> >>> from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
> >>> proves that it is wrong.
> >> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
> >>> proves that it is wrong.
> >>
> >>>>>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
> >>>>>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in the same way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized' too soon
> >>>>>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system makes
> >>>>>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating system' (all) has to
> >>>>>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
> >>>>> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
> >>>>> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
> >>>>> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>>
> >>>> You fabricated a halt-decider which only works in your head.
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>
> >>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>> minds." Einstein
> >
> > Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
> > proves that it is wrong.
> >
> H is a simulator and P is not a simulator therefore if H did exactly
> what P does H would be wrong. H does show exactly what P does.
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<8dadae1a-4bc8-48cc-a67c-488fc4de8f67n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17156&group=comp.theory#17156

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5745:: with SMTP id q5mr1854760qvx.10.1624409160033;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d44f:: with SMTP id m76mr8394525ybf.198.1624409159840;
Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <TVtAI.65377$iY.38032@fx41.iad>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=58.115.187.102; posting-account=QJ9iEwoAAACyjkKjQAWQOwSEULNvZZkc
NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.115.187.102
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<-JidnS57a7VWqkz9nZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sareou$qdq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<zZOdnUC2JPvxokz9nZ2dnUU7-UOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <sarf5p$qdq$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<opbAI.48766$N%.30373@fx05.iad> <satdah$an0$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TVtAI.65377$iY.38032@fx41.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8dadae1a-4bc8-48cc-a67c-488fc4de8f67n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
From: wyni...@gmail.com (wij)
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:46:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: wij - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 00:45 UTC

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 06:57:58 UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/21 3:22 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 6/21/2021 6:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, the problem is that Turing Machines CAN'T be black boxes. And the
> >> definition of the Halting Problem is that the decider is given a full
> >> description of the Turing Machine, which is basically like a full
> >> listing of the program.
> >
> > Oh, sorry. I thought his x86 simulator would run an x86 program and
> > determine if it would halt or not. My bad. The assembled program would
> > have all the information he needs right? Or, would I have to give him
> > source code... Humm, I don't know. Does he have an assembler?
> >
> > When I say "black box", I was basically referring to a program that
> > somebody else assembled into an executable.
> >
> > His simulator, as-is, should be able to simulate any x86 program and
> > determine if it halts or not... Sound Kosher?
> >
> >
> The problem is that the term 'black box' tend to mean something that you
> can't look inside of, which means that his simulator couldn't get at the
> object code of it.
>
> A program that was a real black box would have its internals encrypted
> and have test to make sure that it wasn't being 'spied' on before
> decrypting itself. Of course, without support from the OS, or some
> controlling program, things can't be perfect black boxes, just enough to
> be a pain to look into.

Black box program can be executed, like any app., by simulator or OS.
The same as oracle can be used in TM, P can be a black box to H, black body
in physics.

Re: What if a cat barks?

<Kd-dnb-JppLuF0_9nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17158&group=comp.theory#17158

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:12:19 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <c03f984e-530a-4bd1-9b96-4091ee9635a0n@googlegroups.com> <UqKdnexghf0dBU39nZ2dnUU7-WednZ2d@giganews.com> <7aaab3cd-60e6-45e7-9b0d-34da1844d303n@googlegroups.com> <hv6dnTPOb97bL039nZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <69e32c01-cd52-4d27-8c96-aa5c3bf07dd7n@googlegroups.com> <tbCdnRbmAvT2c0z9nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <4e28ce0d-9914-4add-ae8d-4c3230eac8ean@googlegroups.com> <4I-dnWmsiNBjhU_9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <a1fc9071-be9a-4e0e-b62c-c2bff6c80d7en@googlegroups.com> <5dc2ec90-255e-4f5b-a862-66112989b135n@googlegroups.com> <ap-dnU4KFa_HgU_9nZ2dnUU7-b2dnZ2d@giganews.com> <ac3d4947-eca2-4194-a281-86c201d6f31bn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:12:37 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ac3d4947-eca2-4194-a281-86c201d6f31bn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Kd-dnb-JppLuF0_9nZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 207
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-uaqMdwwlZlFMR51mtV01XnuAT8sJY16dls/fymMtUs4zlnFBCtjgkCIetJDOyzHPuqXVOeW+xyI7yc4!+Eoql+44SKhfOuxJsqBShoAZSmaPudpZmdbAJub36EzcnXb8CjAJrS14Lor9Zrr+DNl/0pFFzAc=
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: 10804
 by: olcott - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 01:12 UTC

On 6/22/2021 7:31 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:22:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2021 12:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:14:01 UTC+8, wij wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:08:26 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the embedded halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the function
>>>>>>>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like searching for a set of
>>>>>>>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code analyzer is sufficient.
>>>>>>>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
>>>>>>>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could implement H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't stand such a test".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P.
>>>>>>>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
>>>>>>> seem ridiculously stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> procedure compute_g(i):
>>>>>>> if f(i, i) == 0 then
>>>>>>> return 0
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
>>>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>>>>>> if (Input_Halts)
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will make H
>>>>>>>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in C-like
>>>>>>> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
>>>>>>> must be identical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
>>>>>> Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
>>>>> If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
>>>>> from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
>>>>> proves that it is wrong.
>>>> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
>>>>> proves that it is wrong.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
>>>>>>>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in the same way.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized' too soon
>>>>>>>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system makes
>>>>>>>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating system' (all) has to
>>>>>>>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
>>>>>>> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
>>>>>>> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
>>>>>>> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You fabricated a halt-decider which only works in your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>
>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>>>>> minds." Einstein
>>>
>>> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
>>> proves that it is wrong.
>>>
>> H is a simulator and P is not a simulator therefore if H did exactly
>> what P does H would be wrong. H does show exactly what P does.
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>
> H2 would do functionally exactly the same H does (H2 can show exactly what H
> does), whatever you call H is (pure?). Manipulating descriptive words is not a
> good sign you honestly want to understand the issues of your proof.
>
> Since you made your refutation a real program (this is very good), but it
> can't stand real tests in my estimate.
> In any cases, reviewer need to duplicate your running program to reproduce
> your result and claim. Everything else is just talk.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks?

<877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17159&group=comp.theory#17159

 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 Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 02:47:11 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="afca713570903c8495a941f8b5759e54";
logging-data="4547"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+R3MdCdpcJTyHBs4OQDxTZ+cPxpcyfC+Q="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EP0NXKZAS+Clg/TrUyuTdDSwFxw=
sha1:M839Qz1Mi/mG/3Agz8Gv73GXKHk=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.56508a90152b7433039c.20210623024711BST.877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 01:47 UTC

"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

> On 6/21/2021 4:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>> He's making a bad analogy. The correct analogy is that /assuming/ that
>> a cat barks leads to a contradiction so we must reject the assumption.
>> He can see the contradiction that assuming a halt decider leads to (at
>> least he claimed to be able to see it) so what to do? He has to state
>> that he has a barking cat -- a halt decider that works at least for the
>> confounding case. Of course he doesn't, but he has to find some way to
>> keep the discussion going (he only cares about keeping people talking).
>
> Ahhh. Good. Okay, well I am still wondering why, when I tell him to
> run his "halt decider" against an unknown, black box program created
> by somebody else... Well, he seems to get pissed off. Afaict, his
> decider only works on programs that he already knows are,
> decided. Cheating 101? Or what? ;^o

Well he flip-flops on this. He keeps saying that he has a halt decider
(sometimes without realising that he's said it) but when this is pointed
out he claims he only cares about the one case -- the "hat" construction
given in so many proofs.

That, alone, would be noteworthy because it's impossible. Way back in
Dec 2018, he was waffling about a decider for one case (which is
trivial), when someone (I think it was Mike Terry) spotted that he was
actually claiming to have a TM H that gave the correct result for the
computation <[H^], [H^]> (my notation -- I'll explain it if you really
care about the details). Once it was pointed out that everyone knows
this is impossible PO was delighted and wrote things like:

"Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."

"I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
Ĥ) input pair. I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
should not take very long. The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
fully encoded as actual Turing machines."

"I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually execute
H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two. It is not
a universal halt decider, yet it is exactly and precisely the Peter
Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) on the basis
of Ĥ actually deciding itself."

I refer to this as the Big Lie because, of course, he never had any such
pair of TMs, but as you can see, it was getting one (impossible) case
right that was the jumping-off point for the last two an half years of
nonsense.

--
Ben.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

<Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17160&group=comp.theory#17160

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 21:15:24 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org> <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 21:15:42 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 104
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-k7wc8rKv5GjUvumPJX5ToWJ5mmPLXGtK51cdLy0Foay0Jm+Hrbv+Snsecl4pGNQ+qmw/KiEVETI4wS7!9HJfi6T4/r15k2GH0mXH4ykaNv9c2VtzhQqcOVHltpWBfBOuGEB2KEB+2OF2KeL9ymzOp5OGwdo=
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: 6183
 by: olcott - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 02:15 UTC

On 6/22/2021 8:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/21/2021 4:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>>> He's making a bad analogy. The correct analogy is that /assuming/ that
>>> a cat barks leads to a contradiction so we must reject the assumption.
>>> He can see the contradiction that assuming a halt decider leads to (at
>>> least he claimed to be able to see it) so what to do? He has to state
>>> that he has a barking cat -- a halt decider that works at least for the
>>> confounding case. Of course he doesn't, but he has to find some way to
>>> keep the discussion going (he only cares about keeping people talking).
>>
>> Ahhh. Good. Okay, well I am still wondering why, when I tell him to
>> run his "halt decider" against an unknown, black box program created
>> by somebody else... Well, he seems to get pissed off. Afaict, his
>> decider only works on programs that he already knows are,
>> decided. Cheating 101? Or what? ;^o
>
> Well he flip-flops on this. He keeps saying that he has a halt decider
> (sometimes without realising that he's said it) but when this is pointed
> out he claims he only cares about the one case -- the "hat" construction
> given in so many proofs.
>
> That, alone, would be noteworthy because it's impossible. Way back in
> Dec 2018, he was waffling about a decider for one case (which is
> trivial), when someone (I think it was Mike Terry) spotted that he was
> actually claiming to have a TM H that gave the correct result for the
> computation <[H^], [H^]> (my notation -- I'll explain it if you really
> care about the details). Once it was pointed out that everyone knows
> this is impossible PO was delighted and wrote things like:
>
> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."
>
> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
> Ĥ) input pair. I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
> should not take very long. The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
> fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>
> "I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually execute
> H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two. It is not
> a universal halt decider, yet it is exactly and precisely the Peter
> Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) on the basis
> of Ĥ actually deciding itself."
>
> I refer to this as the Big Lie because, of course, he never had any such
> pair of TMs, but as you can see, it was getting one (impossible) case
> right that was the jumping-off point for the last two an half years of
> nonsense.
>

Yes and of course when I make a C program that is computationally
equivalent to the standard relation between the HP halt decider and its
impossible input and show all of the steps of how this halt decider
correctly decides this "known" to be impossible input that does not
count at all because it is not 100% perfectly an actual TM.

The C program is implemented in the x86utm operating system using an
actual x86 emulator. This work began in earnest at the end of 2019 after
the huge false start of trying to implement an interpreter for a tiny
subset of C from scratch.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

Ben: You (and others) have affirmed premise (1).

You might be able to see that the conclusion logically follows from
premise (1) and premise (2).

There was one very highly qualified person that has affirmed that
premise (2) is a verified fact.

Premise(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on the
basis of the meaning of its words.

Premise(2) The simulation of the input to H(P,P) never halts without
being aborted is a verified fact on the basis of its x86 execution
trace. (shown below).

From the above true premises it necessarily follows that simulating
halt decider H correctly reports that its input: (P,P) never halts.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

<ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17161&group=comp.theory#17161

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder5.feed.usenet.farm!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!nntp.speedium.network!feeder01!81.171.65.13.MISMATCH!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org> <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 23:00:24 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8058
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 03:00 UTC

On 6/22/21 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 8:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 6/21/2021 4:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>>>> He's making a bad analogy.  The correct analogy is that /assuming/ that
>>>> a cat barks leads to a contradiction so we must reject the assumption.
>>>> He can see the contradiction that assuming a halt decider leads to (at
>>>> least he claimed to be able to see it) so what to do?  He has to state
>>>> that he has a barking cat -- a halt decider that works at least for the
>>>> confounding case.  Of course he doesn't, but he has to find some way to
>>>> keep the discussion going (he only cares about keeping people talking).
>>>
>>> Ahhh. Good. Okay, well I am still wondering why, when I tell him to
>>> run his "halt decider" against an unknown, black box program created
>>> by somebody else... Well, he seems to get pissed off. Afaict, his
>>> decider only works on programs that he already knows are,
>>> decided. Cheating 101?  Or what? ;^o
>>
>> Well he flip-flops on this.  He keeps saying that he has a halt decider
>> (sometimes without realising that he's said it) but when this is pointed
>> out he claims he only cares about the one case -- the "hat" construction
>> given in so many proofs.
>>
>> That, alone, would be noteworthy because it's impossible.  Way back in
>> Dec 2018, he was waffling about a decider for one case (which is
>> trivial), when someone (I think it was Mike Terry) spotted that he was
>> actually claiming to have a TM H that gave the correct result for the
>> computation <[H^], [H^]> (my notation -- I'll explain it if you really
>> care about the details).  Once it was pointed out that everyone knows
>> this is impossible PO was delighted and wrote things like:
>>
>>    "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
>>    specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
>>    Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."
>>
>>    "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
>>    Ĥ) input pair.  I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
>>    should not take very long.  The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
>>    fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>>
>>    "I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually execute
>>    H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two. It is not
>>    a universal halt decider, yet it is exactly and precisely the Peter
>>    Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) on the basis
>>    of Ĥ actually deciding itself."
>>
>> I refer to this as the Big Lie because, of course, he never had any such
>> pair of TMs, but as you can see, it was getting one (impossible) case
>> right that was the jumping-off point for the last two an half years of
>> nonsense.
>>
>
> Yes and of course when I make a C program that is computationally
> equivalent to the standard relation between the HP halt decider and its
> impossible input and show all of the steps of how this halt decider
> correctly decides this "known" to be impossible input that does not
> count at all because it is not 100% perfectly an actual TM.

Except that it isn't because H^ doesn't make copies as it is supposed to
so you don't end up with a true equivalent. This lets you 'cheat' to
detect the recursion that doesn't really exist in the original problem.
You also make you machine unable to handle ANY input because you keep
everything in the same code address space.

Your test that you use in H to detect this recursion is something that
is IMPOSSIBLE to do with a Turing Machine because they just don't have
addresses like that.

So no, they aren't 'equivalents' in any strict sense, but you don't seen
to understand Turing Machines enough to be able to tell the difference.

>
> The C program is implemented in the x86utm operating system using an
> actual x86 emulator. This work began in earnest at the end of 2019 after
> the huge false start of trying to implement an interpreter for a tiny
> subset of C from scratch.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
> Ben: You (and others) have affirmed premise (1).

People agree to premise (1) for the RIGHT definition of the words. This
is that it is aborting NEEDS to be done by the machine that is doing the
simulation, not some copy aborting another copy at some other layer.
This is your flaw here.
>
> You might be able to see that the conclusion logically follows from
> premise (1) and premise (2).

But it doesn't since premise (1) and premise (2) use the words with
different meanings the the combination is unsound

>
> There was one very highly qualified person that has affirmed that
> premise (2) is a verified fact.
>
> Premise(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
> aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on the
> basis of the meaning of its words.

But that meaning isn't what you then make it mean. The actual machine H
that is doing the decision does NOT 'need' to abort the simulation
because the copy of it inside P will, and thus P will halt if given time.

PERIOD. WRONG ANSWER.

>
> Premise(2) The simulation of the input to H(P,P) never halts without
> being aborted is a verified fact on the basis of its x86 execution
> trace. (shown below).
>
> From the above true premises it necessarily follows that simulating halt
> decider H correctly reports that its input: (P,P) never halts.
>
>

Wrong.

You need to decide what you are really trying to do. If you want to try
to convince people you need to accept that you need to use the words as
they are generally defined, and that you can't just change things. If
you REALLY think you have something provable, then it shouldn't require
these linguistic arguments, but should be able to be proved from basic
accepted principles and detailed logic.

If your only method is based on these linguistic arguments, then you
need to admit that your meanings do not match the REAL accepted
meanings, and thus your logic IS FLAWED. Fundamentally, the problem is
your langauge definitions are inconsistent, as is common with natural
language, which is why real logicians don't rely on it, but work with
formalisms to get around the ambiguities.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

<ePidnVYePKcoNU_9nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17162&group=comp.theory#17162

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!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: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:21:25 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org> <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 22:21:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ePidnVYePKcoNU_9nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Yp8hLNxVH8fuvJiTvts7qS6QI9Hif0RKX7gspxStyDQXDCwUOXHkcJdkFUJPE7mJOuGXDaLcTjOw3xh!D/Pm7cBJWqsOdIr6nZQUn+8tOdI7OXxBtJBBGX4nUiaylQ+/eNePYvn8+lNCPQyeOCCJC3yGj9w=
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: 6160
 by: olcott - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 03:21 UTC

On 6/22/2021 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/21 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2021 8:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2021 4:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>>>>> He's making a bad analogy.  The correct analogy is that /assuming/ that
>>>>> a cat barks leads to a contradiction so we must reject the assumption.
>>>>> He can see the contradiction that assuming a halt decider leads to (at
>>>>> least he claimed to be able to see it) so what to do?  He has to state
>>>>> that he has a barking cat -- a halt decider that works at least for the
>>>>> confounding case.  Of course he doesn't, but he has to find some way to
>>>>> keep the discussion going (he only cares about keeping people talking).
>>>>
>>>> Ahhh. Good. Okay, well I am still wondering why, when I tell him to
>>>> run his "halt decider" against an unknown, black box program created
>>>> by somebody else... Well, he seems to get pissed off. Afaict, his
>>>> decider only works on programs that he already knows are,
>>>> decided. Cheating 101?  Or what? ;^o
>>>
>>> Well he flip-flops on this.  He keeps saying that he has a halt decider
>>> (sometimes without realising that he's said it) but when this is pointed
>>> out he claims he only cares about the one case -- the "hat" construction
>>> given in so many proofs.
>>>
>>> That, alone, would be noteworthy because it's impossible.  Way back in
>>> Dec 2018, he was waffling about a decider for one case (which is
>>> trivial), when someone (I think it was Mike Terry) spotted that he was
>>> actually claiming to have a TM H that gave the correct result for the
>>> computation <[H^], [H^]> (my notation -- I'll explain it if you really
>>> care about the details).  Once it was pointed out that everyone knows
>>> this is impossible PO was delighted and wrote things like:
>>>
>>>    "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
>>>    specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
>>>    Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."
>>>
>>>    "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
>>>    Ĥ) input pair.  I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
>>>    should not take very long.  The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
>>>    fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>>>
>>>    "I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually execute
>>>    H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two. It is not
>>>    a universal halt decider, yet it is exactly and precisely the Peter
>>>    Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) on the basis
>>>    of Ĥ actually deciding itself."
>>>
>>> I refer to this as the Big Lie because, of course, he never had any such
>>> pair of TMs, but as you can see, it was getting one (impossible) case
>>> right that was the jumping-off point for the last two an half years of
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> Yes and of course when I make a C program that is computationally
>> equivalent to the standard relation between the HP halt decider and its
>> impossible input and show all of the steps of how this halt decider
>> correctly decides this "known" to be impossible input that does not
>> count at all because it is not 100% perfectly an actual TM.
>
> Except that it isn't because H^ doesn't make copies as it is supposed to
> so you don't end up with a true equivalent.

Others know that it is sufficiently equivalent.

procedure compute_g(i):
if f(i, i) == 0 then
return 0
else
loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)

Its pretty obvious that the C code and the pseudo-code are saying
exactly the same thing.

// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

> This lets you 'cheat' to
> detect the recursion that doesn't really exist in the original problem.

Because others know that it is sufficiently equivalent they can also see
the infinite recursion in the Linz proof as soon as they sufficiently
understand my x86/C proof.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

<871r8saohb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17163&group=comp.theory#17163

 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 Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 11:01:52 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <871r8saohb.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org> <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="afca713570903c8495a941f8b5759e54";
logging-data="4520"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/De9foOpFts9kbYUiq3UtyMDZyllrK/zo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tF7afZIW9RWTwMemlTMFP04UiTk=
sha1:zev/f24yzSKfNOGYh876UFrgwko=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.91cb02390ff631877410.20210623110152BST.871r8saohb.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:01 UTC

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 6/22/21 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2021 8:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:

>>>> Ahhh. Good. Okay, well I am still wondering why, when I tell him to
>>>> run his "halt decider" against an unknown, black box program created
>>>> by somebody else... Well, he seems to get pissed off. Afaict, his
>>>> decider only works on programs that he already knows are,
>>>> decided. Cheating 101?  Or what? ;^o
>>>
>>> Well he flip-flops on this.  He keeps saying that he has a halt decider
>>> (sometimes without realising that he's said it) but when this is pointed
>>> out he claims he only cares about the one case -- the "hat" construction
>>> given in so many proofs.
>>>
>>> That, alone, would be noteworthy because it's impossible.  Way back in
>>> Dec 2018, he was waffling about a decider for one case (which is
>>> trivial), when someone (I think it was Mike Terry) spotted that he was
>>> actually claiming to have a TM H that gave the correct result for the
>>> computation <[H^], [H^]> (my notation -- I'll explain it if you really
>>> care about the details).  Once it was pointed out that everyone knows
>>> this is impossible PO was delighted and wrote things like:
>>>
>>>    "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
>>>    specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
>>>    Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."
>>>
>>>    "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
>>>    Ĥ) input pair.  I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
>>>    should not take very long.  The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
>>>    fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>>>
>>>    "I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually execute
>>>    H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two. It is not
>>>    a universal halt decider, yet it is exactly and precisely the Peter
>>>    Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) on the basis
>>>    of Ĥ actually deciding itself."
>>>
>>> I refer to this as the Big Lie because, of course, he never had any such
>>> pair of TMs, but as you can see, it was getting one (impossible) case
>>> right that was the jumping-off point for the last two an half years of
>>> nonsense.
>>
>> Yes and of course when I make a C program that is computationally
>> equivalent to the standard relation between the HP halt decider and its
>> impossible input and show all of the steps of how this halt decider
>> correctly decides this "known" to be impossible input that does not
>> count at all because it is not 100% perfectly an actual TM.
>
> Except that it isn't because H^ doesn't make copies as it is supposed to
> so you don't end up with a true equivalent. This lets you 'cheat' to
> detect the recursion that doesn't really exist in the original
> problem.

This is obviously a problem in the formal sense, but it can be worked
round in that there is a halting problem for C-like functions that use
pointers as the "representation" and therefore the "hat" construction
does not copy its input. It's just a bit fiddly to pin down the rules
of what's allowed.

The curious fact is that PO does not use this breaking of the rules to
get the right answer. By using external state (as his "Halts" function
apparently does) it's possible for Halts(Confound_Halts, Confound_Halts)
to be correct about the halting of Confound_Halts(Confound_Halts).

But that is not his plan. His plan is to write yards and yards of text
to try to persuade someone, anyone, that the wrong answer is the right
answer.

--
Ben.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

<3sEAI.110548$od.49658@fx15.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17164&group=comp.theory#17164

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx15.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org> <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.iad>
<ePidnVYePKcoNU_9nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ePidnVYePKcoNU_9nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <3sEAI.110548$od.49658@fx15.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: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 06:57:03 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6662
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:57 UTC

On 6/22/21 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/21 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2021 8:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/21/2021 4:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2021 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is
>>>>>>>> definitely a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you been hearing cats bark lately? Wow.
>>>>>> He's making a bad analogy.  The correct analogy is that /assuming/
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> a cat barks leads to a contradiction so we must reject the
>>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>> He can see the contradiction that assuming a halt decider leads to
>>>>>> (at
>>>>>> least he claimed to be able to see it) so what to do?  He has to
>>>>>> state
>>>>>> that he has a barking cat -- a halt decider that works at least
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> confounding case.  Of course he doesn't, but he has to find some
>>>>>> way to
>>>>>> keep the discussion going (he only cares about keeping people
>>>>>> talking).
>>>>>
>>>>> Ahhh. Good. Okay, well I am still wondering why, when I tell him to
>>>>> run his "halt decider" against an unknown, black box program created
>>>>> by somebody else... Well, he seems to get pissed off. Afaict, his
>>>>> decider only works on programs that he already knows are,
>>>>> decided. Cheating 101?  Or what? ;^o
>>>>
>>>> Well he flip-flops on this.  He keeps saying that he has a halt decider
>>>> (sometimes without realising that he's said it) but when this is
>>>> pointed
>>>> out he claims he only cares about the one case -- the "hat"
>>>> construction
>>>> given in so many proofs.
>>>>
>>>> That, alone, would be noteworthy because it's impossible.  Way back in
>>>> Dec 2018, he was waffling about a decider for one case (which is
>>>> trivial), when someone (I think it was Mike Terry) spotted that he was
>>>> actually claiming to have a TM H that gave the correct result for the
>>>> computation <[H^], [H^]> (my notation -- I'll explain it if you really
>>>> care about the details).  Once it was pointed out that everyone knows
>>>> this is impossible PO was delighted and wrote things like:
>>>>
>>>>     "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
>>>>     specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
>>>>     Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."
>>>>
>>>>     "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an
>>>> actual (Ĥ,
>>>>     Ĥ) input pair.  I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
>>>>     should not take very long.  The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
>>>>     fully encoded as actual Turing machines."
>>>>
>>>>     "I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually
>>>> execute
>>>>     H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two. It
>>>> is not
>>>>     a universal halt decider, yet it is exactly and precisely the Peter
>>>>     Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) on the
>>>> basis
>>>>     of Ĥ actually deciding itself."
>>>>
>>>> I refer to this as the Big Lie because, of course, he never had any
>>>> such
>>>> pair of TMs, but as you can see, it was getting one (impossible) case
>>>> right that was the jumping-off point for the last two an half years of
>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes and of course when I make a C program that is computationally
>>> equivalent to the standard relation between the HP halt decider and its
>>> impossible input and show all of the steps of how this halt decider
>>> correctly decides this "known" to be impossible input that does not
>>> count at all because it is not 100% perfectly an actual TM.
>>
>> Except that it isn't because H^ doesn't make copies as it is supposed to
>> so you don't end up with a true equivalent.
>
> Others know that it is sufficiently equivalent.

There is no 'sufficiently' it only is or it isn't.

Is 2.0001 sufficiently equivalent to 2? Its pretty close, but is it
eqivalent.

>
> procedure compute_g(i):
>   if f(i, i) == 0 then
>     return 0
>   else
>     loop forever    // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
>
> Its pretty obvious that the C code and the pseudo-code are saying
> exactly the same thing.
>
> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>   if (Input_Halts)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
>> This lets you 'cheat' to
>> detect the recursion that doesn't really exist in the original problem.
>
> Because others know that it is sufficiently equivalent they can also see
> the infinite recursion in the Linz proof as soon as they sufficiently
> understand my x86/C proof.
>

Just because something 'works' in a given case, doesn't mean it it
correct or right in general.

A simple fact is that your programs are close enough to show that they
don't work (since P(P) does Halt, while H(P,P) says it won't), but it
isn't fully equivalent as H does something that can't be done by the
'equivalent' Turing Machine. The key here is that this 'cheat' doesn't
let H achieve the actual goal of the problem, as the issue is much more
fundamental.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

<49956bbd-e69c-40dc-8356-35688ff07c9bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17165&group=comp.theory#17165

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:aec2:: with SMTP id x185mr9737360qke.294.1624451114648;
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6c43:: with SMTP id h64mr3143112ybc.348.1624451114453;
Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 05:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3sEAI.110548$od.49658@fx15.iad>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.143.231.9; posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.143.231.9
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.iad> <ePidnVYePKcoNU_9nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3sEAI.110548$od.49658@fx15.iad>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <49956bbd-e69c-40dc-8356-35688ff07c9bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:25:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Malcolm McLean - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 12:25 UTC

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 11:57:06 UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/21 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 6/22/2021 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes and of course when I make a C program that is computationally
> >>> equivalent to the standard relation between the HP halt decider and its
> >>> impossible input and show all of the steps of how this halt decider
> >>> correctly decides this "known" to be impossible input that does not
> >>> count at all because it is not 100% perfectly an actual TM.
> >>
> >> Except that it isn't because H^ doesn't make copies as it is supposed to
> >> so you don't end up with a true equivalent.
> >
> > Others know that it is sufficiently equivalent.
> There is no 'sufficiently' it only is or it isn't.
>
> Is 2.0001 sufficiently equivalent to 2? Its pretty close, but is it
> equivalent.
>
PO's system uses x86 code instead of Turing machines. That enables him
to detect when the halt decider is being called on a program including itself.
That's not the root of the error (the halting problem also applies to x86
programs) but it is the root of the confusion.
PO obviously thinks that he has found a counter example to Linz's impossible H.
Othewise he would be so insistent be so insistent about it. I suggest that this
is because he's tied himself up in knots thinking about infinite recursion
and what would have happened had his H been a pure simulator instead of
a simulator with an infinite recursion detector attached.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]

<EsednWBuJbCwyU79nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17166&group=comp.theory#17166

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:33:01 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sap6l7$130c$5@gioia.aioe.org> <87lf73a2of.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sara30$1e0p$2@gioia.aioe.org> <877dil9wtc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jr2dnTtXcoihBE_9nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ctxAI.834238$nn2.737324@fx48.iad>
<ePidnVYePKcoNU_9nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3sEAI.110548$od.49658@fx15.iad>
<49956bbd-e69c-40dc-8356-35688ff07c9bn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 10:33:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49956bbd-e69c-40dc-8356-35688ff07c9bn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <EsednWBuJbCwyU79nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 54
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vXk8NANyx0LoSRqMHl6/Ubnoe7RqjeSQTUuQOu/iHNCI7IeKSHV+x+2g0cwHB7wVw9wccd1V8qLfyKN!Rev5Veiqh/H5B9jWN7LAUFMbDJjSwxxbQNYm7H7A2AVCGFTV95LDcdEObTaaVFh1tfOHDOFE51M=
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: 4032
 by: olcott - Wed, 23 Jun 2021 15:33 UTC

On 6/23/2021 7:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 11:57:06 UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/21 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2021 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes and of course when I make a C program that is computationally
>>>>> equivalent to the standard relation between the HP halt decider and its
>>>>> impossible input and show all of the steps of how this halt decider
>>>>> correctly decides this "known" to be impossible input that does not
>>>>> count at all because it is not 100% perfectly an actual TM.
>>>>
>>>> Except that it isn't because H^ doesn't make copies as it is supposed to
>>>> so you don't end up with a true equivalent.
>>>
>>> Others know that it is sufficiently equivalent.
>> There is no 'sufficiently' it only is or it isn't.
>>
>> Is 2.0001 sufficiently equivalent to 2? Its pretty close, but is it
>> equivalent.
>>
> PO's system uses x86 code instead of Turing machines. That enables him
> to detect when the halt decider is being called on a program including itself.
> That's not the root of the error (the halting problem also applies to x86
> programs) but it is the root of the confusion.
> PO obviously thinks that he has found a counter example to Linz's impossible H.
> Othewise he would be so insistent be so insistent about it. I suggest that this
> is because he's tied himself up in knots thinking about infinite recursion
> and what would have happened had his H been a pure simulator instead of
> a simulator with an infinite recursion detector attached.
>
Which of these seems to be untrue and why?

Premise(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on the
basis of the meaning of its words.

Premise(2) The simulation of the input to H(P,P) never halts without
being aborted is a verified fact on the basis of its x86 execution
trace. (shown below).

From the above true premises it necessarily follows that
simulating halt decider H correctly reports that its input: (P,P) never
halts.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Pages:12345678
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor