Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"It's God. No, not Richard Stallman, or Linus Torvalds, but God." (By Matt Welsh)


devel / comp.theory / Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30661&group=comp.theory#30661

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:35:35 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:35:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 105
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kvnQgEFWFAQHvxw2ujNV2UXXRV+tPVwRxUQ1sI74TmU59CsnnXW3ZwkddO6ZK3eQQw8LhBLjvY35vBA!+TW3lkNafR9Zq+dV7N/dRwgkp8siJClwcQqN+bP8OuXgfMWiFR3KEOxjS2AwO9CHYXY6GbJaKLUy
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: 6499
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:35 UTC

On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>
>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>
>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>> because you already know that it is correct.
>
> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
> me?
>
> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>
>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>
> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.

According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
parameters.

Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and when
we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x, and the
dependent variable is F(x).
https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).

When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.

> If you mean the two pointer
> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
> second as its only argument is non halting?

The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.

> If you do, you are
> (according to other posts of yours) wrong. Say what you mean, or accept
> that honest commentators will have to explain your words back to you.
>

I expressed it accurately in the functional notation which specifies
that the parameters are the inputs to a function and the way that finite
strings are passed to any computable function must be something like the
address of some memory location. In the RASP, RAM and x86 models this is
simply a memory address.

So although you incorrectly nitpick at my terminology you continue to
dodge the key point.

A halt decider computable function computes the mapping from its finite
string parameters to its own accept or reject state based on the actual
behavior specified by these parameters.
Example: The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) by H.

You continue to insist that
A halt decider computable function computes the mapping from non finite
string non-parameters to its own accept or reject state based on the
actual behavior specified by these non finite string non-parameters.
Example: The behavior of P(P).

> At least you've removed the "would" and you have stopped using the
> unclear "it" and "its".
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30662&group=comp.theory#30662

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2902:b0:69e:b906:7078 with SMTP id m2-20020a05620a290200b0069eb9067078mr7689480qkp.717.1650477070458;
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:70a:b0:641:f96a:4c19 with SMTP id
k10-20020a056902070a00b00641f96a4c19mr21990695ybt.612.1650477070240; Wed, 20
Apr 2022 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 10:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.143.231.9; posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.143.231.9
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Denni
s,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:51:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 69
 by: Malcolm McLean - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:51 UTC

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
> >>>>>>>> code...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
> >>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
> >>>>
> >>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
> >>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
> >>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
> >>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
> >>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
> >>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
> >>
> >> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
> >> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
> >> because you already know that it is correct.
> >
> > Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
> > what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
> > change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
> > sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
> > me?
> >
> > What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
> > with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
> > form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
> >
> >> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
> >> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
> >
> > On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
> parameters.
>
>
> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and when
> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x, and the
> dependent variable is F(x).
> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
>
> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
> > If you mean the two pointer
> > parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
> > halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
> > second as its only argument is non halting?
> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
>
Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your system, the "string of
machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30664&group=comp.theory#30664

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:10:29 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:10:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 89
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lmGL+mgcyos5SyHOnthGXRFr8GjlHHGVeY8UQ2Yc46X2aa20uiovO4M5OSLL+rKI5jRjOvnpiSYOFt4!VXwvok0EYHps404vLowfymM/PoFy5AdEPbbUx08lruwasY3oh9kgrtZUvCD9FIWfsCSov+wagbSZ
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: 6262
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:10 UTC

On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>
>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>
>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>>> me?
>>>
>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>
>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>
>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>> parameters.
>>
>>
>> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
>> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and when
>> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x, and the
>> dependent variable is F(x).
>> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
>>
>> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
>> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
>> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
>>> If you mean the two pointer
>>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
>>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
>>> second as its only argument is non halting?
>> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
>>
> Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your system, the "string of
> machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
> Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".

The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a non-halting
sequence of configurations.

If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"

then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
reports that its input is non-halting"

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<fL6dnY7RNeKK0v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30665&group=comp.theory#30665

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:21:11 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:21:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <fL6dnY7RNeKK0v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-PKyzE+yY4AJZYIQKiMT7cY5iViLq4kk7kcg+NtGnoZVSLBvuYHa/m2dok1mDzgDMHVhK1iptaFi8ZeA!2EWto/bDwDrKl6SeT0uuy4RrHUz0isBxm/O0v1QhL4sQdMlxRGI4xHP5vikcBIm6S9HsWaDKncwa
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: 6640
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:21 UTC

On 4/20/2022 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of
>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
>>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>>>> me?
>>>>
>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>>
>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>
>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>>> parameters.
>>>
>>>
>>> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
>>> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and when
>>> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x, and the
>>> dependent variable is F(x).
>>> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
>>>
>>>
>>> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
>>> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
>>> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
>>>> If you mean the two pointer
>>>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
>>>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
>>>> second as its only argument is non halting?
>>> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
>>>
>> Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your system,
>> the "string of
>> machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
>> Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".
>
> The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by H
> cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
> what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
> halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a non-halting
> sequence of configurations.
>
> If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"
>
> then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
> reports that its input is non-halting"
>

We are getting to the point where rebuttals are becoming ridiculous,
this is very reassuring. Every recent rebuttal simply disagrees with
easily verified facts.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30666&group=comp.theory#30666

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:c3:b0:2e3:4bd0:16c2 with SMTP id p3-20020a05622a00c300b002e34bd016c2mr14859710qtw.575.1650483016952;
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:8292:0:b0:641:17d6:47fb with SMTP id
r18-20020a258292000000b0064117d647fbmr21811768ybk.101.1650483016635; Wed, 20
Apr 2022 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:30:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:d8c0:280a:bfa8:8c70;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:d8c0:280a:bfa8:8c70
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com> <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Denni
s,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:30:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 87
 by: Malcolm McLean - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:30 UTC

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 19:10:37 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
> >>>>>>>>>> code...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
> >>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
> >>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
> >>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
> >>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
> >>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
> >>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
> >>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
> >>>> because you already know that it is correct.
> >>>
> >>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
> >>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
> >>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
> >>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
> >>> me?
> >>>
> >>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
> >>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
> >>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
> >>>
> >>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
> >>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
> >>>
> >>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
> >> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
> >> parameters.
> >>
> >>
> >> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
> >> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and when
> >> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x, and the
> >> dependent variable is F(x).
> >> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
> >>
> >> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
> >> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
> >> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
> >>> If you mean the two pointer
> >>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
> >>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
> >>> second as its only argument is non halting?
> >> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
> >>
> > Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your system, the "string of
> > machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
> > Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".
> The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by H
> cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
> what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
> halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a non-halting
> sequence of configurations.
>
> If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"
>
> then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
> reports that its input is non-halting"
>
>
You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does
not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
But I'm still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<ypqdncg3pNU4__3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30667&group=comp.theory#30667

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:44:37 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:44:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <ypqdncg3pNU4__3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 101
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Frw1RwiEO8lKG6JdySKp0VNZ1HnetFvAEx8pouwgFN8/LJFF6mmEnVmQGoeeUf1TCMh29Xbr1EZZ7xL!8XL0G3UInvzwHpJD8aoRHX7IBdnNIg515MPsnlu2y3joCDh6RhWPke3lXTMwOSw9XuCxNz3M4TDk
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: 6994
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:44 UTC

On 4/20/2022 2:30 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 19:10:37 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
>>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
>>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
>>>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>>>>> me?
>>>>>
>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>>>> parameters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
>>>> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and when
>>>> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x, and the
>>>> dependent variable is F(x).
>>>> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
>>>>
>>>> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
>>>> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
>>>> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
>>>>> If you mean the two pointer
>>>>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
>>>>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
>>>>> second as its only argument is non halting?
>>>> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
>>>>
>>> Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your system, the "string of
>>> machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
>>> Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".
>> The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by H
>> cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
>> what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
>> halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a non-halting
>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>> If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"
>>
>> then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
>> reports that its input is non-halting"
>>
>>
> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does
> not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.

> But I'm still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.

It is an empirically proved verified fact that the input to H(P,P) does
not halt so anyone and anything disagreeing is necessarily incorrect.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<a6-dnWp3z8ZV_v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30668&group=comp.theory#30668

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:49:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 14:49:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<ypqdncg3pNU4__3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ypqdncg3pNU4__3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <a6-dnWp3z8ZV_v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 124
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wG9QIASHX40OtpUOJgArvX+fGsFbwy+9UNHh+K1Ml87msgteNPCRZYGOtb9Ob3hquyHvNaYDzJie3op!qCG6YgigXql1MDdCZ7NbcS8qVQfjUVVu9imfYEBQFBd+IHtNf0Vi82AGiwB9iKS3ipKRZKt5VNZR
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: 7601
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:49 UTC

On 4/20/2022 2:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 2:30 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 19:10:37 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
>>>>>>>>> input to
>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume
>>>>>>>> you know
>>>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>>>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people
>>>>>> think of
>>>>>> me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>>>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>>>>> parameters.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
>>>>> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and
>>>>> when
>>>>> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> dependent variable is F(x).
>>>>> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
>>>>> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
>>>>> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
>>>>>> If you mean the two pointer
>>>>>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
>>>>>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
>>>>>> second as its only argument is non halting?
>>>>> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
>>>>>
>>>> Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your
>>>> system, the "string of
>>>> machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
>>>> Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".
>>> The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by H
>>> cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
>>> what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
>>> halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a non-halting
>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"
>>>
>>> then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
>>> reports that its input is non-halting"
>>>
>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does
>> not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
>
>
>> But I'm still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the
>> obvious
>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>
> It is an empirically proved verified fact that the input to H(P,P) does
> not halt so anyone and anything disagreeing is necessarily incorrect.
>

If I smash a Boston cream pie in someones face and they have a
fundamental religious belief that there is no such thing as pies the pie
dripping from their face conclusively proves that they are incorrect.

The verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting is the pie
dripping from the face.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30671&group=comp.theory#30671

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:24:49 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="11329098bb04545838684a4d5759e09f";
logging-data="12920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Qb7bF0AkzoLmNKpUc/w5/MIq8Z1p96Qo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:euv/DyhsdHwdlaqcCNklZVxjvXI=
sha1:kywZf8pDCmjons1auqxN6TRBaO0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7966e91ec680fbb3c8f8.20220420212449BST.875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 20:24 UTC

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

> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.

PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear. He
absolutely can't tell you what the new mantra means because it's either
in direct contradiction to previous statements, or it's not the halting
problem.

But is doesn't matter. Since H(X,Y) should be true if, and only if,
X(Y) halts, he has already said that his H is wrong on that score -- the
only one that matters.

Pushing the "it's right because of what would happen if..." line did not
work. That was too clearly not the halting problem, so now we have the
more literal nonsense that is "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting". I
think it will run for good few weeks more.

--
Ben.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<4293c53b-16a4-41a7-afd6-c4cae167ac6en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30672&group=comp.theory#30672

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:584c:0:b0:2f1:fc23:a9a5 with SMTP id h12-20020ac8584c000000b002f1fc23a9a5mr11798929qth.61.1650486788090;
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:841:0:b0:641:960f:c47f with SMTP id
62-20020a250841000000b00641960fc47fmr21458481ybi.607.1650486787914; Wed, 20
Apr 2022 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <a6-dnWp3z8ZV_v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:889b:bb69:c73e:a2d0;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:889b:bb69:c73e:a2d0
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<ypqdncg3pNU4__3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <a6-dnWp3z8ZV_v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4293c53b-16a4-41a7-afd6-c4cae167ac6en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Denni
s,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 20:33:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 130
 by: Malcolm McLean - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 20:33 UTC

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 20:49:35 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 2:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 4/20/2022 2:30 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 19:10:37 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
> >>>>>>>>>>> correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
> >>>>>>>>> input to
> >>>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code.
> >>>>>>>> You
> >>>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume
> >>>>>>>> you know
> >>>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You
> >>>>>>>> need to
> >>>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
> >>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
> >>>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
> >>>>>> ignore
> >>>>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
> >>>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
> >>>>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people
> >>>>>> think of
> >>>>>> me?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
> >>>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
> >>>>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
> >>>>>>> correct
> >>>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
> >>>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
> >>>>> parameters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
> >>>>> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and
> >>>>> when
> >>>>> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x,
> >>>>> and the
> >>>>> dependent variable is F(x).
> >>>>> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
> >>>>> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
> >>>>> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
> >>>>>> If you mean the two pointer
> >>>>>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
> >>>>>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
> >>>>>> second as its only argument is non halting?
> >>>>> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your
> >>>> system, the "string of
> >>>> machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
> >>>> Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".
> >>> The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by H
> >>> cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
> >>> what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
> >>> halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a non-halting
> >>> sequence of configurations.
> >>>
> >>> If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"
> >>>
> >>> then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
> >>> reports that its input is non-halting"
> >>>
> >> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does
> >> not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
> >
> >
> >> But I'm still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the
> >> obvious
> >> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
> >
> > It is an empirically proved verified fact that the input to H(P,P) does
> > not halt so anyone and anything disagreeing is necessarily incorrect.
> >
> If I smash a Boston cream pie in someones face and they have a
> fundamental religious belief that there is no such thing as pies the pie
> dripping from their face conclusively proves that they are incorrect.
>
> The verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting is the pie
> dripping from the face.
>
You have never published H, so we can't verify anything. I do believe you
when you say that P(P) halts and H(P,P) reports "non-halting". The question
which everyone is asking is how you get from that fact to the claim that
"The input to H(P,P) is non-halting".

As I said, I suspect that the reason is confusion, and the root of the confusion
is that you are using an x86 emulator to make statements about Turing machines.
Using an x86 emulator instead a Turing machine isn't of itself fatal to your
project, but it opens the way for all sorts of errors that using Turing machines
themselves would avoid. So really I urge you to learn more about Turing
machines.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30673&group=comp.theory#30673

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:34:36 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:34:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 83
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-gjUgwoLWRIUn52nhUfZ9s+MpK/SNR/nUiMraBLeGCqriDntT4j+wnc4fpJEBKeR6T/tLAPI/7iiBXxx!GNQF/ox7RVIugpwb0F7QySkwf0kws0FYpJi72L2M0gk8GyH6QSMB+rTyNMdQOjppTEKUXKuDyWYh
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: 5656
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 20:34 UTC

On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>
> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.

THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
this would be its machine address [000009f0].

The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
input would never halt H returns 0.

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

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

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

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

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

The above verifies the fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting.
Anyone insisting on disagreeing with verified facts that they know are
verified facts is a liar by definition.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<d5mdnUMaGszm7f3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30674&group=comp.theory#30674

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:43:39 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:43:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<ypqdncg3pNU4__3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<a6-dnWp3z8ZV_v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4293c53b-16a4-41a7-afd6-c4cae167ac6en@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <4293c53b-16a4-41a7-afd6-c4cae167ac6en@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <d5mdnUMaGszm7f3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 224
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-W02Aw+UpcZcYJGnxXcG7RApSaPXBKzfP+lnvYrZd2szSb7ZqU3q16Jjh1u8T6LLNdEMZ9kiJSuHmKzX!c320HK2SC5cQptgk5M32GaKIK4WTZwWDZRgyYjhO0jRHnrkfx90nNh75Fd0cgxtOr2TYKDq/UDe9
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: 12361
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 20:43 UTC

On 4/20/2022 3:33 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 20:49:35 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 2:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2022 2:30 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 19:10:37 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
>>>>>>>>>>> input to
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume
>>>>>>>>>> you know
>>>>>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You
>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
>>>>>>>> ignore
>>>>>>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>>>>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>>>>>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people
>>>>>>>> think of
>>>>>>>> me?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>>>>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>>>>>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>>>>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>>>>>>> parameters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
>>>>>>> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x,
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> dependent variable is F(x).
>>>>>>> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
>>>>>>> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
>>>>>>> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
>>>>>>>> If you mean the two pointer
>>>>>>>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
>>>>>>>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
>>>>>>>> second as its only argument is non halting?
>>>>>>> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your
>>>>>> system, the "string of
>>>>>> machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
>>>>>> Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".
>>>>> The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by H
>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
>>>>> what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
>>>>> halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a non-halting
>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"
>>>>>
>>>>> then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
>>>>> reports that its input is non-halting"
>>>>>
>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does
>>>> not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But I'm still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the
>>>> obvious
>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>
>>> It is an empirically proved verified fact that the input to H(P,P) does
>>> not halt so anyone and anything disagreeing is necessarily incorrect.
>>>
>> If I smash a Boston cream pie in someones face and they have a
>> fundamental religious belief that there is no such thing as pies the pie
>> dripping from their face conclusively proves that they are incorrect.
>>
>> The verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting is the pie
>> dripping from the face.
>>
> You have never published H, so we can't verify anything.

This right here provides complete proof that the input to H(P,P) is
non-halting. If you are clueless about the x86 language that does not
mean that it is not complete proof.

The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
this would be its machine address [000009f0].

The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
input would never halt H returns 0.

void P(u32 x)
{ if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

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


Click here to read the complete article
Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<87o80va10e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30676&group=comp.theory#30676

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:38:41 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <87o80va10e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="11329098bb04545838684a4d5759e09f";
logging-data="18614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+f1gCyM+Y4Xj39vXhYpUyaCHJTKwsBx3g="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OxcL+MCTv4L15XhhQ2NQnJpuDSY=
sha1:LHlgltohbuTym5sspPK658FIqiI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.263a5fb0093c845f0924.20220420223841BST.87o80va10e.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:38 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>
>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>> me?
>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>
>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>
> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
> parameters.

(1) They are to H not to H(P,P).

(2) Most texts will use "input" only metaphorically. It's not a good
technical term.

(3) This is C. Input has a very well-defined and distinct meaning in all
programming languages including C.

Anyway, as you know I am not trying to get you to the right words. The
more inappropriate words you use the less likely it is that someone will
take your writing seriously.

> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and
> when we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x,
> and the dependent variable is F(x).
> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).

What is it with you posting information for children? You can assume
that I know a lot about functions. And why post a link to a video that
does not talk about inputs? There probably are some, particularly for
for children, that do use that metaphor, bit this one doesn't.

> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function

You must not do that. Don't "construe" one thing as another. Talking
about the other thing properly. Give the commutable function another
name, maybe h, and explain what it's domain and co-domain are.

> then H computes the mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own
> accept of reject state,

No. Maybe you have just confused yourself but "construing" one thing as
something quite different, but this is just nonsense -- particularly the
"its own ... state". If you specified the domain and co-domain of h
(not H) you would see that it's nonsense.

> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk
> misdirection.

No, you are completely at sea as soon as you try to talk about anything
by C code. Stick with the C code. You can be just as wrong with that.
There no need to ass in bing wrong about what a commutable function is.

>> If you mean the two pointer
>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
>> second as its only argument is non halting?
>
> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.

.... is a string of machine code, not a computation. Do you, in fact,
mean the code pointed to by P called with P as an argument? Code needs
an execution environment (at the very least the code of a function needs
arguments) to make sense.

>> If you do, you are
>> (according to other posts of yours) wrong. Say what you mean, or accept
>> that honest commentators will have to explain your words back to you.
>
> I expressed it accurately in the functional notation

No. You used a bad metaphor from a different context.

> which specifies
> that the parameters are the inputs to a function and the way that
> finite strings are passed to any computable function must be something
> like the address of some memory location. In the RASP, RAM and x86
> models this is simply a memory address.

Nope. You very specifically obscure the one thing that matters. When
all the bad metaphors are correctly interpreted, you still have nothing
about which you can claim halting or non-halting. Those two pointers --
both to the code of a function, neither halt nor do they not halt. The
computation in questions is the one called with the other as its
argument. That last bit must be obscured to the very end because you've
already told us the that the computation halts.

> So although you incorrectly nitpick at my terminology you continue to
> dodge the key point.

Not saying what computation it is that you claim to be non halting is
not nit-picking. It's what makes your 17 years of "work" wrong. It's
the huge elephant in the room that must pretend is not there. That's
why I call is a mantra. Keep saying "the input to H(P,P) is non
halting" and maybe you can keep this going a bit longer.

The arguments passed to H represent -- by prior agreement -- some
computation whose halting H should correctly report. Your H reports
false for the pair of pointers P and P. That's wrong.

> A halt decider computable function

Garbage word combination. A halt decider is an algorithm in some model
of computation. A computable function is a mathematical function, not
an algorithm. Putting them together can only be done for some vague
poetic reason.

Here are the words used correctly. It might help you see what they
mean... No Turing machine computes the halting function. The halting
function is not a computable function. No halt decider exists because
the halting function is not computable. Etc, etc...

> computes the mapping from its finite string parameters to its own
> accept or reject state based on the actual behavior specified by these
> parameters.

Well, hard to evaluate this since the thing ("a halt decider computable
function") is just a poetic juxtaposition of technical terms.

> Example: The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) by H.

You can't simulate two pointers, and H is not a simulator. This is not
nit-picking. You can simulate the one pointer called with the other,
i.e. the call P(P), but you specifically reject that that is what you
mean. You have to reject it and you have to keep not saying what else
it could mean.

And now you have adding in the nonsense that the input is simulated by
H. The one thing we know about H is that it can't be a simulator. It
can do a bit of simulating, but it must always halt.

> You continue to insist that A halt decider computable function
> computes the mapping from non finite string non-parameters to its own
> accept or reject state based on the actual behavior specified by these
> non finite string non-parameters. Example: The behavior of P(P).

I don't insist on that because I don't use technical words poetically.
I do insist, because it's what the halting problem is about, that a halt
decider must accept or reject an input based on the halting or otherwise
of the computation represented by that input. To be telling you yet
again what the halting problem is after 17 years is a sorry state of
affairs.

If H is to do the job, it must be able to tell us if P(P) halts or not.
If passing H the two pointers P and P is not the way that is done you
are stuck. And since you've told us the P(P) halts and H(P,P) == false,
you can't really say any more.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30677&group=comp.theory#30677

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:46:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="11329098bb04545838684a4d5759e09f";
logging-data="18614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+M1c6xBlGKM6sKa8c5vWuxb/6AtzqGXfM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qTxDFwPnm1qsh/Ucho9SeFmSgFw=
sha1:wZ57zUA+dMgrdalWnKvxpNx7FB8=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.1199e9439aabca1dfc3f.20220420224628BST.87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 21:46 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>
> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:

Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
to simulate the two pointers P and P?

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<PtGdnULu_agNDf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30679&group=comp.theory#30679

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:00:32 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:00:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o80va10e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87o80va10e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <PtGdnULu_agNDf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 91
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ohamtDz8o6tXq0UG0qhnIY/eXEUWi3fySAj3HMbAvKHNyNWD8HhWt+oZ6Jq+/JEmtjCKRrg+n6DzqS2!T5KyXHsdUMZcvFWYCf1JOaDP8KNsgoaE6peD9y8bScNwqOheTBIJjFod4G6E4MWKKxB/rQGc/Z2g
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: 5798
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:00 UTC

On 4/20/2022 4:38 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>
>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>>> me?
>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>
>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>
>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>> parameters.
>
> (1) They are to H not to H(P,P).
>

In mathematics, an argument (also known as input) of a function is a
value that must be provided to obtain the function's result. It is also
called an independent variable. The binary function f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2
has two arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_of_a_function

> (2) Most texts will use "input" only metaphorically. It's not a good
> technical term.
>

Yet since computable functions use the term "input" we must use that
term as a bridge.

If f:Σ∗ → Σ∗ is function, and ∃ a Turing machine
which on the input w ∈ Σ∗ writes f(w), ∀w ∈ Σ∗,
then we call f as computable function.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2993807/what-is-a-computable-function

> (3) This is C. Input has a very well-defined and distinct meaning in all
> programming languages including C.
>
> Anyway, as you know I am not trying to get you to the right words. The
> more inappropriate words you use the less likely it is that someone will
> take your writing seriously.
>

That a halt decider computes the mapping from its input finite strings
to its own accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
specified by these inputs is more technically accurate than any textbook
ever says.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<LfCdnUne97UZD_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30680&group=comp.theory#30680

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:08:52 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:08:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <LfCdnUne97UZD_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 49
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-GUAR/ax84fwZscYKjOm3hj4I1AkxN7K4Bh8pP5L3GbtdeygcYr2eFVC6C+1i24gZ+UoxtbCqvIaDvw+!E9u0+jYZxwDhxp8wzty74OycWXRCyNcu6+GWHdPDh3qCpiFwztXoXgMPGCw4oqEKZ4etUXFCzXdR
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: 4029
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:08 UTC

On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>
>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>
> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
> that you mean that P(P) is non halting.

If you make sure to ignore every word that I said you might make that
guess. Since you just proved that you did ignore every word that I said
I am ignoring the rest of your words and making you to try again to
answer my prior post correctly.

If you are utterly clueless about the x86 language then say that.

> But you reject that and anyway
> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>

The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
machine address [000009f0].

I am not say one damned thing about P(P) except that it is a perpetual
dishonest dodge strawman error on your part.

THIS IS SHORT HAND FOR MY WHOLE PAGE OF PRIOR ANALYSIS
If the input to H(P,P) is non halting

Then H is necessarily correct to report:
the input to H(P,P) is non halting

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30681&group=comp.theory#30681

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:14:21 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:14:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 41
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Cj8NLF31D/GBEWQixwk1mYwgo+bPtEGK3Ep0+dbSHS1jjRAGO1WMMBZteVdg2bUlmjD+PISO98tKwpy!SQYCVk5wN8TK7buggM5JR4wbxqckOwTxN5ByEj90rw8lmcX7EjHqpfqdL9IKLpHf2xVkAAFed3Bn
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: 3722
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:14 UTC

On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>
>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>
> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>

The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
machine address [000009f0].

I am not say one damned thing about P(P) except that it is a perpetual
dishonest dodge strawman error on your part.

You know damn well that deciders compute the mapping from their inputs
so when you keep bringing up a non-input knowing the non-inputs are
irrelevant you prove yourself to be a liar.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30683&group=comp.theory#30683

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:20e2:b0:44c:423c:5075 with SMTP id 2-20020a05621420e200b0044c423c5075mr658711qvk.47.1650497819056;
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:36:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2408:0:b0:641:d07e:6ca with SMTP id
k8-20020a252408000000b00641d07e06camr22156241ybk.341.1650497818856; Wed, 20
Apr 2022 16:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 16:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:d114:c6b2:bbd2:9919;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:d114:c6b2:bbd2:9919
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Denni
s,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:36:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 80
 by: Malcolm McLean - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:36 UTC

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 21:34:44 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
> >> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
> >> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
> >> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
> >
> > PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
> The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
> reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
> this would be its machine address [000009f0].
>
> The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
> emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
> would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
> input would never halt H returns 0.
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
>
> _P()
> [000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
> [000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
> [000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> [000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
> [000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
> [000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
> [000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
> its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
> reject this input as non-halting.
>
> The above verifies the fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting.
> Anyone insisting on disagreeing with verified facts that they know are
> verified facts is a liar by definition.
>
It seems to me that the code in H is being excluded from the analysis.
We call 00000826, but the code at 00000826 is not shown, we just
assume that it goes straight back to 000009d6.

So my suspicion seems to be correct. It's the only explanation I can see
for your claims. If we say that P(P) includes the call to H, whilst "the input
to H(P,P)" excludes that call, then everything makes sense.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30685&group=comp.theory#30685

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:51:38 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 18:51:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 103
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dZUJbTYiogzOrYMPNxewURtLamieQqLBHGqEqhQO1TH/tO0fIC6gv97QLjkuWqH3VdITrFpWHLn+ZQ/!9IQuOPNm5XRKfvB+9ip+Th82bCCAgXToO07UZUYKMJEWPN6nkLE1lGiU20qMihwGqNmnFQNVvhQN
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: 6623
 by: olcott - Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:51 UTC

On 4/20/2022 6:36 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 21:34:44 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>
>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>> The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
>> reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
>> this would be its machine address [000009f0].
>>
>> The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
>> emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
>> would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
>> input would never halt H returns 0.
>>
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>> if (H(x, x))
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>> }
>>
>> _P()
>> [000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
>> [000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
>> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
>> [000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
>> [000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
>> [000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
>> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>> of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>
>> Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
>> its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
>> reject this input as non-halting.
>>
>> The above verifies the fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting.
>> Anyone insisting on disagreeing with verified facts that they know are
>> verified facts is a liar by definition.
>>
> It seems to me that the code in H is being excluded from the analysis.

If we know that H simply emulated its input until it determines that its
input wold never reach its final state that is all that we need to know
about H.

This has already been fully explained you just ignored that part.

> We call 00000826, but the code at 00000826 is not shown, we just
> assume that it goes straight back to 000009d6.
>
> So my suspicion seems to be correct. It's the only explanation I can see
> for your claims. If we say that P(P) includes the call to H, whilst "the input
> to H(P,P)" excludes that call, then everything makes sense.

When H(P,P) is executed P cannot possibly reach its final state whether
or not H ever aborts its simulation of P. This conclusively proves that
H is correct to reject this input.

Showing every detail of the 16,000 steps of H does not make this point
more clear.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<87r15r8fug.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30686&group=comp.theory#30686

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 01:01:11 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <87r15r8fug.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o80va10e.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PtGdnULu_agNDf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0edf30fb0378872d2392a90a7cc48d20";
logging-data="30399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Eu6aTYk7IM2B264pao+CMVqzYu31Aq3E="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b8jLJrfksGxk5NIwh/v30MyaAb4=
sha1://P0o2mTzRUlMciQ4erUxITFnKI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.5555d0cca3eac4e7cdd5.20220421010111BST.87r15r8fug.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:01 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/20/2022 4:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you know
>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You need to
>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
>>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>>>> me?
>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>>
>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>>
>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>>> parameters.
>>
>> (1) They are to H not to H(P,P).
>
> In mathematics, an argument (also known as input) of a function is a
> value that must be provided to obtain the function's result. It is
> also called an independent variable. The binary function f(x,y) = x^2
> + y^2 has two arguments.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_of_a_function

I suppose you think this supports something or other. It's all standard
stuff with which I have no objection.

In C programs inputs are data read by IO functions. H is a C function.
And even in mathematics, the input are to the function, not the function
expression.

>> (2) Most texts will use "input" only metaphorically. It's not a good
>> technical term.
>
> Yet since computable functions use the term "input" we must use that
> term as a bridge.

Some people might use the input metaphor for computable functions, but
you don't even know what a computable function is (at least going by how
you manged the use of the term before).

> If f:Σ∗ → Σ∗ is function, and ∃ a Turing machine
> which on the input w ∈ Σ∗ writes f(w), ∀w ∈ Σ∗,
> then we call f as computable function.

Note it's the TM that gets the input. That is a 100% correct usage.
The string w in f(w) is not referred to at all. The author may call it
an argument to f or may call it (confusingly) an input to f but neither
phrase is used in your quote.

> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2993807/what-is-a-computable-function

Do you have any proper sources? You do know that people like you can
write Wikipedia pages and post on stackexchange?

>> (3) This is C. Input has a very well-defined and distinct meaning in all
>> programming languages including C.
>> Anyway, as you know I am not trying to get you to the right words. The
>> more inappropriate words you use the less likely it is that someone will
>> take your writing seriously.
>
> That a halt decider computes the mapping from its input finite strings
> to its own accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
> specified by these inputs is more technically accurate than any
> textbook ever says.

Great to see you wasting time defending the wrong words rather than
addressing the elephant in the room. While the words are wrong, we know
what you mean by the "input to H(P,P)". What we don't know is what it
means for two pointers to be non halting.

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30687&group=comp.theory#30687

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e64:b0:446:3d57:d320 with SMTP id jz4-20020a0562140e6400b004463d57d320mr17010243qvb.87.1650499508279;
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:911:0:b0:2ec:e5d:b795 with SMTP id 17-20020a810911000000b002ec0e5db795mr23272169ywj.513.1650499504727;
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:d114:c6b2:bbd2:9919;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:d114:c6b2:bbd2:9919
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com> <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com> <875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
<5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Denni
s,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:05:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 106
 by: Malcolm McLean - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:05 UTC

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 00:51:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 6:36 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 21:34:44 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
> >>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
> >>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
> >>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
> >>>
> >>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
> >> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
> >> The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
> >> reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
> >> this would be its machine address [000009f0].
> >>
> >> The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
> >> emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
> >> would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
> >> input would never halt H returns 0.
> >>
> >> void P(u32 x)
> >> {
> >> if (H(x, x))
> >> HERE: goto HERE;
> >> return;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >> }
> >>
> >> _P()
> >> [000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
> >> [000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> [000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> [000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
> >> [000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >> [000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >> [000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
> >> [000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
> >> [000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
> >> [000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
> >> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
> >> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >> of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.
> >> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
> >> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
> >> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
> >> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
> >> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
> >> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
> >> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
> >> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
> >> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
> >> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> >>
> >> Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
> >> its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
> >> reject this input as non-halting.
> >>
> >> The above verifies the fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting.
> >> Anyone insisting on disagreeing with verified facts that they know are
> >> verified facts is a liar by definition.
> >>
> > It seems to me that the code in H is being excluded from the analysis.
> If we know that H simply emulated its input until it determines that its
> input wold never reach its final state that is all that we need to know
> about H.
>
> This has already been fully explained you just ignored that part.
> > We call 00000826, but the code at 00000826 is not shown, we just
> > assume that it goes straight back to 000009d6.
> >
> > So my suspicion seems to be correct. It's the only explanation I can see
> > for your claims. If we say that P(P) includes the call to H, whilst "the input
> > to H(P,P)" excludes that call, then everything makes sense.
> When H(P,P) is executed P cannot possibly reach its final state whether
> or not H ever aborts its simulation of P. This conclusively proves that
> H is correct to reject this input.
>
> Showing every detail of the 16,000 steps of H does not make this point
> more clear.
>
That's why you should use Turing machines. A universal Turing machine can
be constructed with a hundred or so states. It's simpler than an x86 emulator,
because Turing machines are simpler than x86 chips. Also, Turing machines
usually scale up to handling unbounded inputs without extra programming
effort.
You can in fact create tiny UTMs with only three or four states.This surprised
me when I found it out, and I think they achieve that by playing tricks with
the representation of the machines they emulate. But that would be worth
an investigation.

Somewhere in those 16,000 steps must be the problem which is causing
your results to come out inconsistent. It's not true that we can just ignore H.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30689&group=comp.theory#30689

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 01:17:23 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0edf30fb0378872d2392a90a7cc48d20";
logging-data="30399"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195gvmR5eeIQCrodSHWSK051aDbThgY3Sc="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:01oYHwoUIRs5y67sHsX1URyGwk8=
sha1:nJWC75XVT/kpc6cdpKyFnAyYEPE=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.baf3f4d06da83871027a.20220421011723BST.87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:17 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>
>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>
> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
> machine address [000009f0].

So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
have left...

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30690&group=comp.theory#30690

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:19:17 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:19:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
<5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 130
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5C81253W/7SMa1+P428E5jX80k3CMI3crdikN3fQfOMvcB5c6gGjV8hcT6vzZ1YAnXw00l4M6IZNkwe!4AAc0gKYjL40mHeLBQudFVDDeIqQzEZoRijk6IDrpoRVUUONbe7rknkLDm4MboZiuAgzMiklb7K9
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: 8277
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:19 UTC

On 4/20/2022 7:05 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 00:51:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 6:36 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 21:34:44 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>> The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
>>>> reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
>>>> this would be its machine address [000009f0].
>>>>
>>>> The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
>>>> emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
>>>> would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
>>>> input would never halt H returns 0.
>>>>
>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>> {
>>>> if (H(x, x))
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _P()
>>>> [000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
>>>> [000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
>>>> [000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>> [000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>> [000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
>>>> [000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
>>>> [000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>> [000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>> of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.
>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>
>>>> Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
>>>> reject this input as non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> The above verifies the fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting.
>>>> Anyone insisting on disagreeing with verified facts that they know are
>>>> verified facts is a liar by definition.
>>>>
>>> It seems to me that the code in H is being excluded from the analysis.
>> If we know that H simply emulated its input until it determines that its
>> input wold never reach its final state that is all that we need to know
>> about H.
>>
>> This has already been fully explained you just ignored that part.
>>> We call 00000826, but the code at 00000826 is not shown, we just
>>> assume that it goes straight back to 000009d6.
>>>
>>> So my suspicion seems to be correct. It's the only explanation I can see
>>> for your claims. If we say that P(P) includes the call to H, whilst "the input
>>> to H(P,P)" excludes that call, then everything makes sense.
>> When H(P,P) is executed P cannot possibly reach its final state whether
>> or not H ever aborts its simulation of P. This conclusively proves that
>> H is correct to reject this input.
>>
>> Showing every detail of the 16,000 steps of H does not make this point
>> more clear.
>>
> That's why you should use Turing machines.

With a TM that 16,000 steps wold be hundreds of millions of steps and
still utterly irrelevant to the analysis.

As only as we know that H (or embedded_H) performs a correct simulation
of its input (P,P) (or ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) until it determines that this input
would never reach its own final state of [000009f0] (or ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or
⟨Ĥ.qn⟩) that is all that we need to know about H (or embedded_H).

> A universal Turing machine can
> be constructed with a hundred or so states. It's simpler than an x86 emulator,
> because Turing machines are simpler than x86 chips. Also, Turing machines
> usually scale up to handling unbounded inputs without extra programming
> effort.
> You can in fact create tiny UTMs with only three or four states.This surprised
> me when I found it out, and I think they achieve that by playing tricks with
> the representation of the machines they emulate. But that would be worth
> an investigation.
>
> Somewhere in those 16,000 steps must be the problem which is causing
> your results to come out inconsistent. It's not true that we can just ignore H.

So maybe you just don't know enough of the x86 language to verify from
what I already said that the x86 emulation of (P,P) be H is proven to be
correct.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30691&group=comp.theory#30691

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:25:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 19:24:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 40
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3j9jvGKFQoZ2+BY2quQOJiN190C9ka933MFFUzJFnk3gKCz0Eo0fOFUzLWpxpnpgAdsCgDL2aAlC91I!2jVXAKC6EXQl3bparhMApRPrKs8lG5V4Tmc9mCYMmPe7wuo6cZ4/Vam53bdV+afBaK1iwlC3ApLX
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: 3774
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:24 UTC

On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>
>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>
>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>> machine address [000009f0].
>
> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
> have left...
>

I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
besides me.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<3f29d90c-af85-49f9-96b7-0aa6a5dc0f01n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30692&group=comp.theory#30692

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:351:b0:2f1:fe90:2ffb with SMTP id r17-20020a05622a035100b002f1fe902ffbmr11737688qtw.396.1650501738198;
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:100a:b0:642:456b:2f6a with SMTP id
w10-20020a056902100a00b00642456b2f6amr22405685ybt.527.1650501737992; Wed, 20
Apr 2022 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:78f9:4d4f:9d26:75e2;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:78f9:4d4f:9d26:75e2
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com> <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com> <875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
<5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>
<i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3f29d90c-af85-49f9-96b7-0aa6a5dc0f01n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Denni
s,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:42:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 171
 by: Malcolm McLean - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:42 UTC

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 01:19:24 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 7:05 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 00:51:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2022 6:36 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 21:34:44 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
> >>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
> >>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
> >>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
> >>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
> >>>> The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
> >>>> reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
> >>>> this would be its machine address [000009f0].
> >>>>
> >>>> The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
> >>>> emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
> >>>> would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
> >>>> input would never halt H returns 0.
> >>>>
> >>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>> {
> >>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>> return;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> _P()
> >>>> [000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>> [000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>> [000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>> [000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>> [000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
> >>>> [000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>> [000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>> [000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
> >>>> [000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
> >>>> [000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>> [000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
> >>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
> >>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>> of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.
> >>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
> >>>> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
> >>>> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
> >>>> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
> >>>> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
> >>>> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
> >>>> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
> >>>> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
> >>>> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
> >>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> >>>>
> >>>> Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
> >>>> its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
> >>>> reject this input as non-halting.
> >>>>
> >>>> The above verifies the fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting.
> >>>> Anyone insisting on disagreeing with verified facts that they know are
> >>>> verified facts is a liar by definition.
> >>>>
> >>> It seems to me that the code in H is being excluded from the analysis..
> >> If we know that H simply emulated its input until it determines that its
> >> input wold never reach its final state that is all that we need to know
> >> about H.
> >>
> >> This has already been fully explained you just ignored that part.
> >>> We call 00000826, but the code at 00000826 is not shown, we just
> >>> assume that it goes straight back to 000009d6.
> >>>
> >>> So my suspicion seems to be correct. It's the only explanation I can see
> >>> for your claims. If we say that P(P) includes the call to H, whilst "the input
> >>> to H(P,P)" excludes that call, then everything makes sense.
> >> When H(P,P) is executed P cannot possibly reach its final state whether
> >> or not H ever aborts its simulation of P. This conclusively proves that
> >> H is correct to reject this input.
> >>
> >> Showing every detail of the 16,000 steps of H does not make this point
> >> more clear.
> >>
> > That's why you should use Turing machines.
> With a TM that 16,000 steps wold be hundreds of millions of steps and
> still utterly irrelevant to the analysis.
>
> As only as we know that H (or embedded_H) performs a correct simulation
> of its input (P,P) (or ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩) until it determines that this input
> would never reach its own final state of [000009f0] (or ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ or
> ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩) that is all that we need to know about H (or embedded_H).
> > A universal Turing machine can
> > be constructed with a hundred or so states. It's simpler than an x86 emulator,
> > because Turing machines are simpler than x86 chips. Also, Turing machines
> > usually scale up to handling unbounded inputs without extra programming
> > effort.
> > You can in fact create tiny UTMs with only three or four states.This surprised
> > me when I found it out, and I think they achieve that by playing tricks with
> > the representation of the machines they emulate. But that would be worth
> > an investigation.
> >
> > Somewhere in those 16,000 steps must be the problem which is causing
> > your results to come out inconsistent. It's not true that we can just ignore H.
> So maybe you just don't know enough of the x86 language to verify from
> what I already said that the x86 emulation of (P,P) be H is proven to be
> correct.
>
However much you know about assembly language, it's hard to tell what
code is doing if it is not visible.

If you wrote a universal Turing machine, in the obvious way, that would be
about a hundred states. It's a lot simpler than an x86 emulator, because
the machine it is emulating is simpler. Then of course we would want to
add infinite cycle detection logic to turn it into a halt decider. How complicated
does this infinite cycle dectection logic have to be? Maybe that's the
question which is the key to this whole affair.

I think we should also investigate the tiny UTMs with only a handful of states.
We might well learn something useful there.

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard

<q%28K.601809$mF2.500583@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30697&group=comp.theory#30697

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <psKdncp5lM76FcL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yNS7K.88210$Kdf.60643@fx96.iad> <20220420131504.00007b6d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220420131504.00007b6d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <q%28K.601809$mF2.500583@fx11.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, 20 Apr 2022 22:07:18 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6476
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:07 UTC

On 4/20/22 8:15 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:13:17 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly not.  The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>> Deflection.  As I said, if you were right you'd publish the
>>>>>> code.  You pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt.  I can
>>>>>> only assume you know that if you publish H the game will be well
>>>>>> and truly up.  You need to trot out one of your excuses for
>>>>>> keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
>>>>> it is because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
>>>> ignore what I've said about it many times.  Do you really think
>>>> anyone will change their option of me just because you keep typing
>>>> the same vague sentence?  And, more to the point, why do you care
>>>> what people think of me?
>>>>
>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something
>>>> useful with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this
>>>> forum" to form your preferred opinion of me.  I am not that
>>>> important.
>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
>>>>> correct for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>
>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.  If you mean the two pointer
>>>> parameters, say so.  That "input" -- those two pointers -- are
>>>> neither halting nor non halting.  Maybe you mean calling the first
>>>> with the second as its only argument is non halting?  If you do,
>>>> you are (according to other posts of yours) wrong.  Say what you
>>>> mean, or accept that honest commentators will have to explain your
>>>> words back to you.
>>>>
>>>> At least you've removed the "would" and you have stopped using the
>>>> unclear "it" and "its".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Second R-CHOP chemotherapy today, this time the Rituxan was well
>>> Tolerated, The prior session I could only tolerate 10% of the full
>>> dose. It was a 12 hour day today from when I left my house until I
>>> returned from chemo.
>>>
>>> Even though all of my lymph nodes are jam packed with lymphoma so
>>> much that the PET scan only saw continuous masses of lymphoma and
>>> could not distinguish separated lymph nodes, my blood still does
>>> not know that I have  cancer. Hematocrit and hemoglobin are a litte
>>> low everything else it normal.
>>>
>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) is provably
>>> non-halting is an entirely sufficient basis for H to report that
>>> it's input is non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> Except that the actual correct simulation of the input to H(P,P),
>> when H(P,P) returns false, actually halts. You only think it doesn't
>> because you use the wrong definiton of the correct simulation of the
>> input, and instead look at the simulation of the input done by H,
>> which aborts itself, and thus is NOT a correct simulation.
>>
>> FALSE PREMISE, UNSOUND conclusion.
>>
>> You just show yourself to be too dumb to see that.
>>
>> Maybe you are like your blood, to dumb to know there is a problem.
>
> Crawl back under your rock, Richard Damon.
>
> /Flibble
>
>

So, do you think that an aborted simulation correctly simulates the
behavior of a program that represents the input?

Strange definition of a Correct Simulation if it doesn't agree with the
behavior of what it is simulating.

That is just a fundamental error in logic and langugage.

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor