Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be SHOT AGAIN!


devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<uMM5K.240615$41E7.223424@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30225&group=comp.theory#30225

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 297
Message-ID: <uMM5K.240615$41E7.223424@fx37.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, 13 Apr 2022 23:44:26 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 17767
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:44 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating calling the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, according to you, will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call P(P) halts. Everything here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. Therefore H is wrong to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your desired result. That you haven't explained why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet that same definition of halting. So that along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me wrong because I can't bear the though of having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in
>>>>>>>>>>> tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and
>>>>> Dennis
>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>
>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>> Liar !
>>
>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that
>> you know it.
>
> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>
> Is it fun being a liar?
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<wNM5K.240616$41E7.28777@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30226&group=comp.theory#30226

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 302
Message-ID: <wNM5K.240616$41E7.28777@fx37.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, 13 Apr 2022 23:45:33 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 18474
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:45 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating calling the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, according to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your flamboyant, sciencey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call P(P) halts. Everything here
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual execution trace that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H(P,P) return false (you posted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of these at any time, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. Therefore H is wrong to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your desired result. That you haven't explained why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet that same definition of halting. So that along
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me wrong because I can't bear the though of having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and
>>>>>>> Dennis
>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as
>>>>>> follows:
>>>>> Liar !
>>>>
>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but
>>>> that you know it.
>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>
>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>
> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>
> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<sPM5K.240617$41E7.201700@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30227&group=comp.theory#30227

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
<v_-dnfVAderHCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <v_-dnfVAderHCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 351
Message-ID: <sPM5K.240617$41E7.201700@fx37.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, 13 Apr 2022 23:47:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 20813
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:47 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the matter you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does simulating two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating calling the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, according to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your flamboyant, sciencey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct call P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual execution trace that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of P(P) halting (you made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H(P,P) return false (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of these at any time, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. Therefore H is wrong to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts your desired result. That you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet that same definition of halting. So that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>> and Dennis
>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as
>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but
>>>>>> that you know it.
>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>
>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>>
>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>>
>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>>
>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>>
>>
>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>>
>> _P()
>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>> //The above returns false
>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>
>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input
>
> so both are answering the exact same question
>
> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
> we know it is non-halting.
>
> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<PQM5K.240618$41E7.5407@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30228&group=comp.theory#30228

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com> <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com> <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com> <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com> <bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com> <v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 351
Message-ID: <PQM5K.240618$41E7.5407@fx37.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, 13 Apr 2022 23:49:04 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 20749
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:49 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the matter you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does simulating two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating calling the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, according to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your flamboyant, sciencey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct call P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual execution trace that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of P(P) halting (you made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H(P,P) return false (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of these at any time, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. Therefore H is wrong to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts your desired result. That you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet that same definition of halting. So that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>> and Dennis
>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as
>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but
>>>>>> that you know it.
>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>
>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>>
>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>>
>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>>
>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>>
>>
>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>>
>> _P()
>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>> //The above returns false
>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>
>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same
>> input so both are answering the exact same question but get different
>> results,
>
> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
> we know it is non-halting.
>
> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30229&group=comp.theory#30229

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:56:26 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:56:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="60b38ce27d3b9f90ea7dc414435233a4";
logging-data="30060"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UcbOTsRmQNjCFaBU2wwJg"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:heyagsajpunDLD4W1p9NbQ7Fdkk=
In-Reply-To: <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:56 UTC

On 2022-04-13 21:10, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 18:52, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its
>>>>> [00000970] machine address, no waffle there merely an easily
>>>>> verified fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> _P()
>>>>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax      // push P
>>>>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
>>>>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>>>>
>>>>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>>>>
>>>> But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it
>>>> has the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator).
>>> I will provide more detail for you.
>>
>>
>> Are you going to provide these details,
>
> I should have said I will provide more detail by adding comments to the
> code above. I did do this Push P, Push P call H is a "c" call to H.

That's hardly more detail. I'm perfectly capable of grasping assembly
language without your comments.

So where does the alleged simulation occur? A direct call is not the
same thing as simulation.

Does your H actually exist, or is this just something you've been making
up? The above certainly doesn't correspond to you description of a
simulating halt decider.

André

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30231&group=comp.theory#30231

 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, 13 Apr 2022 23:00:37 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:00:36 -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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 57
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EC7geAnmVsbKrNPH0xWXKHtUT4J4DEYcL+y2n6ZEhMhmeKLIfkBtmIdWYixM16q0uDljYtVYF3/FP+s!NKgt9gf6eyBWQrgrp9KYpcuG4OJpu20/Z0A6k6C8mDAE780jwaIzHtxGWNcUywJvVG1AR1GikeIt
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: 4321
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:00 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-13 21:10, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 18:52, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its
>>>>>> [00000970] machine address, no waffle there merely an easily
>>>>>> verified fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax      // push P
>>>>>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
>>>>>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it
>>>>> has the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator).
>>>> I will provide more detail for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you going to provide these details,
>>
>> I should have said I will provide more detail by adding comments to
>> the code above. I did do this Push P, Push P call H is a "c" call to H.
>
> That's hardly more detail. I'm perfectly capable of grasping assembly
> language without your comments.
>
> So where does the alleged simulation occur? A direct call is not the
> same thing as simulation.
>

H does this.

> Does your H actually exist, or is this just something you've been making
> up? The above certainly doesn't correspond to you description of a
> simulating halt decider.
>
> André
>

It exists as fully operational code for a long time now, more than a year.

--
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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<QqSdnaVvyps_JMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30232&group=comp.theory#30232

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:05:21 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:05:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <QqSdnaVvyps_JMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 36
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Gb1b/B/BtVFSBjKyXYXPhgPTXDEBX/I05lwRN66wCDh/OSUu6hEkz5wQVyLjjomc98CrhcKxd2tN7iw!lvlaUJWJzn+hyXmEIZsnbz4zUgJaJo1zWuLfcAgg9bi1QummNrmTqxpOcg+JfcVmxELuRYTYbr+H
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: 3358
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 06:05 UTC

On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>
>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>
>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>
> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
> need to try a new ruse.
>

As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
we know it is non-halting.

Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<b866e22d-423b-4c52-88fb-60b924930a1an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30233&group=comp.theory#30233

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1c0d:b0:2f1:cff3:4fc7 with SMTP id bq13-20020a05622a1c0d00b002f1cff34fc7mr954174qtb.94.1649926609844;
Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:2485:0:b0:2ec:354d:d45a with SMTP id
k127-20020a812485000000b002ec354dd45amr1123145ywk.213.1649926609653; Thu, 14
Apr 2022 01:56:49 -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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:f1c9:9b58:8d36:18d1;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:f1c9:9b58:8d36:18d1
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b866e22d-423b-4c52-88fb-60b924930a1an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:56:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 56
 by: Malcolm McLean - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:56 UTC

On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 01:37:11 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
> >>>
> >>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
> >>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
> >>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
> >>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
> >>
> >> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
> >
> > Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
> > That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
> > need to try a new ruse.
> >
> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the universe
> can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.
> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>
> _P()
> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>
>
> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>
A simulator is a machine code program. When you examine its "execution
trace" it looks nothing like the program it is simulating. You wouldn't
know that it was a simulator or which program it was simulating, except by
a most exhaustive analysis.

So it's not clear what you have done. However, in posts many months ago, you
mentioned removing the simulator code itself from the execution traces.

Since if you use a simulating halt decider and apply the H_Hat, H_Hat
construction to it, you get a nested series of simulations of simulations, which
are eventually halted by the simulator, removing the simulator code itself from
the execution traces makes it looks as though the code is caught in an infinite
loop, when in fact it isn't.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<x_S5K.839831$aT3.814212@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30234&group=comp.theory#30234

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me> <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <x_S5K.839831$aT3.814212@fx09.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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 06:49:02 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4874
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:49 UTC

On 4/14/22 12:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-13 21:10, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 18:52, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its
>>>>>>> [00000970] machine address, no waffle there merely an easily
>>>>>>> verified fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax      // push P
>>>>>>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
>>>>>>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it
>>>>>> has the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator).
>>>>> I will provide more detail for you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to provide these details,
>>>
>>> I should have said I will provide more detail by adding comments to
>>> the code above. I did do this Push P, Push P call H is a "c" call to H.
>>
>> That's hardly more detail. I'm perfectly capable of grasping assembly
>> language without your comments.
>>
>> So where does the alleged simulation occur? A direct call is not the
>> same thing as simulation.
>>
>
> H does this.

Except that H isn't a 'CORRECT' simmulator of the input, as has been
pointed out many time. By DEFINITION, a CORRECT simulation of the input
does not abort its simulation. What you show is a partial simulation,
which abort is procssing.

It shows H's behavior on the input, it doesn't show the ACTUAL behavior
of the input. You confuse the two.

>
>> Does your H actually exist, or is this just something you've been
>> making up? The above certainly doesn't correspond to you description
>> of a simulating halt decider.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> It exists as fully operational code for a long time now, more than a year.
>
>

It may be 'operational' in one sense, but it still FAILS to be the
correct decider, because it still gives the WRONG answer.

Now, you did once mistakenly configure it to be an actual correct
simulation of the input, and posted the results and it showed that the
input actually halts, because the H that it calls aborts the simulation
of ITS copy of the input, and returned the non-halting answer, and thus
P halted.

THAT was the correct simulation of the input, which proves your claim is
false.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<baT5K.21808$O01.8989@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30235&group=comp.theory#30235

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QqSdnaVvyps_JMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <QqSdnaVvyps_JMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <baT5K.21808$O01.8989@fx33.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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 07:01:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4256
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:01 UTC

On 4/14/22 2:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>> P(P) halts.  Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>> simulating the input means something silly.  It's literal nonsense to
>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>
>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>
>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>> That's not rhetoric.  You've been too clear about this attempt.  You
>> need to try a new ruse.
>>
>
> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
> we know it is non-halting.
>
> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>
>

Yes, *IF* the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) would never halt
then it is non-halting, but the correct simulation of the input to
H(P,P) DOES Halt since H(P,P) returns non-halting. Thus your statement
has a false premise so doesn't prove its conclusion.

The key here is that H doesn't do a correct simulatipon of its input,
but aborts it early, and thus H doesn't actually see the right behavior.

To get the correct simulation of the input, we need to give that input
to a correct simulator, like you did once, which shows that it will
halt, because H does an incorrect simulation and incorrectly decides
that the input won't halt and then aborts its simulation and incorrectly
says that its input is non-halting.

That is the basic nature of the problem. H CAN'T get the correct answer,
which is what Linz proved.

You keep on getting what H does, and what is correct mixed up. H is NOT
the source of truth about the behavior of its input. That would be like
a teacher giving a test, and just taking one of the students answers and
making it what everyone will be graded against, even though they did it
wrong.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<t3917t$152q$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30236&group=comp.theory#30236

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:41:03 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t3917t$152q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me> <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="37978"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Python - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:41 UTC

Deludel crand Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
....
>> So where does the alleged simulation occur? A direct call is not the
>> same thing as simulation.
>>
>
> H does this.
>
>> Does your H actually exist, or is this just something you've been
>> making up? The above certainly doesn't correspond to you description
>> of a simulating halt decider.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> It exists as fully operational code for a long time now, more than a year.

Why could we be sure that you will never publish this code, Peter?

Because it doesn't exist.

You are a sinful LIAR.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<7891db88-8b20-4fed-a88f-a2aeb51795e1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30237&group=comp.theory#30237

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:107:b0:2e1:d655:cc4c with SMTP id u7-20020a05622a010700b002e1d655cc4cmr1372182qtw.669.1649937316040;
Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:230d:0:b0:641:375c:b5ad with SMTP id
j13-20020a25230d000000b00641375cb5admr1396040ybj.137.1649937315787; Thu, 14
Apr 2022 04:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ieidnfSoTfZdCsr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com> <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com> <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com> <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com> <bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com> <v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ca64aa02-662a-4cb4-b528-da2109066335n@googlegroups.com> <ieidnfSoTfZdCsr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7891db88-8b20-4fed-a88f-a2aeb51795e1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:55:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 389
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 11:55 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:40:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
> >>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
> >>>>>>>> Liar !
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
> >>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
> >>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
> >>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
> >>>>
> >>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
> >>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
> >>>
> >>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
> >>>
> >>> _P()
> >>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>> //The above returns false
> >>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
> >>>
> >>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input so
> >>> both are answering the exact same question but get different results,
> >> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
> >> we know it is non-halting.
> >
> > You just keep repeating with no explanation that H(P,P)==false is correct. I explain it detail why it's not.
> >
> > Hb demonstrates that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) i.e. (P,P) DOES halt. So find an error:
> >
> > _P()
> > [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> > [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> > [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> > [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> > //The above returns false
> > [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> > [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> > [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> > [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> > [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> > // Hb reaches the final state of its input
> >
> ONE OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS MUST BE INCORRECT* BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS
> LOGICAL NECESSITY (*It doesn't freaking matter which one).
> > Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders
> > and are given the same input so both are
> > answering the exact same question but get
> > different results, so one must be wrong. correct.
> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
> we know it is non-halting.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30240&group=comp.theory#30240

 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:33:33 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d24b48f9c0b0cf8c127841564518bd44";
logging-data="15678"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MLUk2plLCSgXgIteI42f3Sq4o4L9qiFk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cPmXXyghYMASGv4DbHe1w8/mOK8=
sha1:vmCG20oRwkH1TKqa3PuPSOYdOH4=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.ffb3c4c4fd830b027096.20220414143333BST.877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:33 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/13/2022 10:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

>> Does your H actually exist, or is this just something you've been
>> making up? The above certainly doesn't correspond to you description
>> of a simulating halt decider.
>
> It exists as fully operational code for a long time now, more than a
> year.

Why did it take you so long? 18 years ago you wrote:

"I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the
[above] statement has been proven to be true. I have not shown that
solving the Halting Problem is possible, merely refuted every proof
that it is impossible."

but somehow it took until last year to write an H such that gets the key
case wrong? An H that returns false for the key case is not hard to
write!

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30241&group=comp.theory#30241

 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:30:42 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d24b48f9c0b0cf8c127841564518bd44";
logging-data="17874"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dQ1yOXHvuW/V9EWwDnFXky8Zdh4IVe7Y="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fe2koF4ng4LJ9O5lJZidPezrhyw=
sha1:Ut8sOc+iqhzmO87h/nklxE5NmfE=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.9f3067f272f431745f39.20220414153042BST.87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:30 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>
>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>
>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>
>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
>> need to try a new ruse.
>
> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the
> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.

Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two
pointers. They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they are just
pointers.

Up until, now I was prepared to take your words metaphorically, but
since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is
non-halting" means, I will have start to take you are your word, though
I have still guessed what you mean by "input to H(P,P)". I may have to
start replying that "H does no I/O" if you keep using the silly term
input.

What we do know, for sure, is that H(P,P) == false even though P(P)
halts. And that's wrong. And I can keep saying that even if you never
explain your poetic use of language.

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<Ge2dnbfhksXvrMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30242&group=comp.theory#30242

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:36:34 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:36:33 -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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b866e22d-423b-4c52-88fb-60b924930a1an@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <b866e22d-423b-4c52-88fb-60b924930a1an@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Ge2dnbfhksXvrMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 74
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5EzL9HEZr+kYtA7I33+uG5oHeYzYwyRqpQrOcifZvoYMVIQrEJ0DRmPfd/aRsPXhgVOkrfcNwinAN3q!SagAtn2Yqbqb8Up3vjIK9ca3qKIA+HLzIg6+C+95JexnQRYH/NmUx0GSt88AxguPoUpNzLbtFZ5U
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: 5351
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:36 UTC

On 4/14/2022 3:56 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 01:37:11 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>>
>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>>
>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
>>> need to try a new ruse.
>>>
>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the universe
>> can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.
>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>
>> _P()
>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>
>>
>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>
> A simulator is a machine code program. When you examine its "execution
> trace" it looks nothing like the program it is simulating. You wouldn't
> know that it was a simulator or which program it was simulating, except by
> a most exhaustive analysis.
>
> So it's not clear what you have done. However, in posts many months ago, you
> mentioned removing the simulator code itself from the execution traces.
>
> Since if you use a simulating halt decider and apply the H_Hat, H_Hat
> construction to it, you get a nested series of simulations of simulations, which
> are eventually halted by the simulator, removing the simulator code itself from
> the execution traces makes it looks as though the code is caught in an infinite
> loop, when in fact it isn't.

The simulated input does not need to be caught in an infinite loop, as
long as it would never reach is own final state in an unlimited number
of steps of simulation it fails to meet the Linz definition:

computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

thus making it a non-halting sequence of configurations.

--
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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<77mdnb2uM9hDr8X_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30243&group=comp.theory#30243

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:42:38 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:42:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
<v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ca64aa02-662a-4cb4-b528-da2109066335n@googlegroups.com>
<ieidnfSoTfZdCsr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7891db88-8b20-4fed-a88f-a2aeb51795e1n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <7891db88-8b20-4fed-a88f-a2aeb51795e1n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <77mdnb2uM9hDr8X_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 312
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vzwHYP2mXHPUlAZwZ1dJlhDTsxHS7y4Icg4z25opRaUhU5oHM8wiCQANoC86FUdDlAYDxX/7u+nPI0Z!gZvdN+bRjp6FEtArM7WkJfSfmpY96Sr2i6kYHPYey+Ho3H6QbTaxGam9FuyCX8gkZkUzEC0fY7fM
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: 21074
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:42 UTC

On 4/14/2022 6:55 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:40:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>>>>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
>>>>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>>>>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>>>>>
>>>>> _P()
>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>> //The above returns false
>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>>>>
>>>>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input so
>>>>> both are answering the exact same question but get different results,
>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
>>>> we know it is non-halting.
>>>
>>> You just keep repeating with no explanation that H(P,P)==false is correct. I explain it detail why it's not.
>>>
>>> Hb demonstrates that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) i.e. (P,P) DOES halt. So find an error:
>>>
>>> _P()
>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>> //The above returns false
>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>>
>> ONE OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS MUST BE INCORRECT* BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS
>> LOGICAL NECESSITY (*It doesn't freaking matter which one).
>>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders
>>> and are given the same input so both are
>>> answering the exact same question but get
>>> different results, so one must be wrong. correct.
>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
>> we know it is non-halting.
>
> Obviously, *if* the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then we know it is non-halting. The problem is the correctly simulated input DOES halt.
>
Is it fun to be a liar?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30244&group=comp.theory#30244

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:43:39 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:43:38 -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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me> <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 39
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-glO9Ll9X5Dlor69QF/qbwfwEy659yMQ+mHL/MeUOwYnJssd1/MzTv++lSutnNOzFFgZ80vLeNVcI/ru!iZ/7fx4PMWFlv/3GVSwR/AFAg0IsBv7gnVoNAQZTpOQU+xkIXP1bCBNgowgc+VUfBSPy/QUEdSSp
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: 3481
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:43 UTC

On 4/14/2022 8:33 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/13/2022 10:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
>>> Does your H actually exist, or is this just something you've been
>>> making up? The above certainly doesn't correspond to you description
>>> of a simulating halt decider.
>>
>> It exists as fully operational code for a long time now, more than a
>> year.
>
> Why did it take you so long? 18 years ago you wrote:
>
> "I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the
> [above] statement has been proven to be true. I have not shown that
> solving the Halting Problem is possible, merely refuted every proof
> that it is impossible."
>
> but somehow it took until last year to write an H such that gets the key
> case wrong? An H that returns false for the key case is not hard to
> write!
>

As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
we know it is non-halting.

Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30245&group=comp.theory#30245

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:54:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 09:54:44 -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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1TBuT9wZa9zACUlKLCvxxhsJqrXG5cZ6B9+gL5t07+BiCv24x6iHGcpAUOMEt7l/IhRP7kESunf5bW3!efr0NbLzR9IO3MjPN6WX+yhnMgRRW+CDTDOilfCwCWa6Kz3t/HQ4/nyR3FsFU8oB73JL0YjFdLfI
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: 5060
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 14:54 UTC

On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>>
>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>>
>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
>>> need to try a new ruse.
>>
>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the
>> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.
>
> Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two
> pointers. They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they are just
> pointers.
>
> Up until, now I was prepared to take your words metaphorically, but
> since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is
> non-halting" means,

Sure when I make to to explain ever details many hundreds of times
damned liars will say that I never mentioned any of this.

The input to H is the only way that finite strings can be passed to a
"C" function and points to the finite string of the machine code of P.

The simulating halt decider H uses an x86 emulator to simulate its input
(P,P) and finds that it would never reach its own final state in an
unlimited number of simulated steps.

This conclusively proves that this simulated input fails to match the
Linz definition: computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
whenever it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

> I will have start to take you are your word, though
> I have still guessed what you mean by "input to H(P,P)". I may have to
> start replying that "H does no I/O" if you keep using the silly term
> input.
>
> What we do know, for sure, is that H(P,P) == false even though P(P)
> halts. And that's wrong. And I can keep saying that even if you never
> explain your poetic use of language.
>

As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
we know it is non-halting.

Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30246&group=comp.theory#30246

 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:40:37 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d24b48f9c0b0cf8c127841564518bd44";
logging-data="22567"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sTVXWC9XTuOem081S4UeEOF63XodZt9M="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4spjlYHHuBdM2ipktmiMDE+kvYo=
sha1:fPK7disHKAFxCdqhWdvdbIRwvJs=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.a1bb8575c4dcde0ee593.20220414174037BST.87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 16:40 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>>>
>>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>>>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
>>>> need to try a new ruse.
>>>
>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the
>>> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.
>>
>> Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two
>> pointers. They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they are just
>> pointers.
>>
>> Up until, now I was prepared to take your words metaphorically, but
>> since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is
>> non-halting" means,
>
> Sure when I make to to explain ever details many hundreds of times
> damned liars will say that I never mentioned any of this.

Just use the right terms. H(P,P) has not input. The call has
arguments. They are just pointers. Pointers are not halting nor are
they non halting. Given that this mantra is the core of what you are
now claiming, I would have thought you would want to avoid it being
patentent nonsense.

> The input to H is the only way that finite strings can be passed to a
> "C" function and points to the finite string of the machine code of P.

H has no input. Do you mean the two pointer arguments?

> The simulating halt decider H uses an x86 emulator to simulate its
> input (P,P) and finds that it would never reach its own final state in
> an unlimited number of simulated steps.

(P,P) is too vague. What needs to be simulated is the first pointer
being called as a function with the second as it's argument. I.e. the
call P(P) is what should be simulated.

We all know why you won't say this property. You've said that H(P,P) ==
false even though P(P) halts, so you must obscure something or the game
is well and truly up.

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30248&group=comp.theory#30248

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:14:14 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:14:14 -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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 77
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-M9cZnIoP1MIm/0mPHKAl/EYzYiFjdO/RNvHqCZGJkShW0VnHpNMUN0rAMIhz64h8iamtskfwTMvzwh3!fNguYvXrCcwZmlBE6hnQ2gV6dQWHOjpOJrCx6Z30PH3vivhHbfnta7+wye+hS+DlQ1WyCJwZfcJy
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: 5117
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:14 UTC

On 4/14/2022 11:40 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>>>>
>>>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>>>>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
>>>>> need to try a new ruse.
>>>>
>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the
>>>> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.
>>>
>>> Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two
>>> pointers. They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they are just
>>> pointers.
>>>
>>> Up until, now I was prepared to take your words metaphorically, but
>>> since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is
>>> non-halting" means,
>>
>> Sure when I make to to explain ever details many hundreds of times
>> damned liars will say that I never mentioned any of this.
>
> Just use the right terms. H(P,P) has not input. The call has
> arguments. They are just pointers. Pointers are not halting nor are
> they non halting. Given that this mantra is the core of what you are
> now claiming, I would have thought you would want to avoid it being
> patentent nonsense.
>
>> The input to H is the only way that finite strings can be passed to a
>> "C" function and points to the finite string of the machine code of P.
>
> H has no input. Do you mean the two pointer arguments?
>
>> The simulating halt decider H uses an x86 emulator to simulate its
>> input (P,P) and finds that it would never reach its own final state in
>> an unlimited number of simulated steps.
>
> (P,P) is too vague. What needs to be simulated is the first pointer
> being called as a function with the second as it's argument. I.e. the
> call P(P) is what should be simulated.
>

That the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
own final state proves that this input is not-halting.

Adding all of the tedious details that you suggest does not change this
fact.

> We all know why you won't say this property. You've said that H(P,P) ==
> false even though P(P) halts, so you must obscure something or the game
> is well and truly up.
>

--
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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<t39nqp$1vjj$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30249&group=comp.theory#30249

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: news.dea...@darjeeling.plus.com (Mike Terry)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:06:16 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t39nqp$1vjj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="65139"; posting-host="CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.7.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.plus.net
 by: Mike Terry - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:06 UTC

On 14/04/2022 04:16, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>
>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>
>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>
>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>
>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>
> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>
>
> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>
> _P()
> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> //The above returns false
> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>
> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input so both are answering the exact same question but get different results, so one must be wrong. H makes an abort decision and leaves UTM mode to abort. Hb *never* leaves UTM mode and simulates the input to a final state.
>
> Therefore Hb(P,P)==true is correct, proving that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<k4idnUci9fPV-8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30251&group=comp.theory#30251

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:22:00 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:21:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
<t39nqp$1vjj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t39nqp$1vjj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <k4idnUci9fPV-8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 359
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-F0KMZ7ffqBCDkSRn+eovlHi7asTbtbUUIp47exrOgRq3s7Rs2NqpC6sGbXldTBrYg3nDyvPe/FSppxf!0PPQh74xypq3mRiPptVx6j2XQ1QeuVuyy0goPlX7NU9mmLKkU/ZPbmLbKFyzs+iwlT0rmXhBllpE
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: 21519
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:21 UTC

On 4/14/2022 1:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 04:16, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth of the matter you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What does simulating two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating calling the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, according to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your flamboyant, sciencey,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct call P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual execution trace that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one of P(P) halting (you made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H(P,P) return false (you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of these at any time, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. Therefore H is wrong to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicts your desired result. That you haven't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meet that same definition of halting. So that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>> and Dennis
>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as
>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but
>>>>>> that you know it.
>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>
>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>>
>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>>
>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>>
>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>>
>>
>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>>
>> _P()
>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>> //The above returns false
>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>
>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same
>> input so both are answering the exact same question but get different
>> results, so one must be wrong. H makes an abort decision and leaves
>> UTM mode to abort. Hb *never* leaves UTM mode and simulates the input
>> to a final state.
>>
>> Therefore Hb(P,P)==true is correct, proving that H(P,P)==false is
>> incorrect.
>>
>
> PO published his own trace about a year ago, where he actually showed
> P(P) halting!  (I suspect it was an accident, and he forgot to manually
> delete the end of the trace.)
The fact that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) would never
reach its own final state conclusively proves that this input is
non-halting and nothing in the universe can possibly contradict this.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30257&group=comp.theory#30257

 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 21:28:58 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d24b48f9c0b0cf8c127841564518bd44";
logging-data="3824"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VaAw3kPJeRdFiAbcR8yde5XS1EXH1jAk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tN30VTBQ8mSSLCtXh9BR9e8lhoc=
sha1:gyGrRtqlJRjQzC7RO2eazGy13AY=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.ac4e2ae5dfade8993f54.20220414212858BST.878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:28 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/14/2022 8:33 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> Does your H actually exist, or is this just something you've been
>>>> making up? The above certainly doesn't correspond to you description
>>>> of a simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>> It exists as fully operational code for a long time now, more than a
>>> year.
>> Why did it take you so long? 18 years ago you wrote:
>> "I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the
>> [above] statement has been proven to be true. I have not shown that
>> solving the Halting Problem is possible, merely refuted every proof
>> that it is impossible."
>> but somehow it took until last year to write an H such that gets the key
>> case wrong? An H that returns false for the key case is not hard to
>> write!

How time flies! I remember when you didn't think that every instance of
the halting problem had a correct yes/no answer, and you must remember
how self-modifying Turing machines resolved the question. And of course
that great day in Dec 2018 when you finally had the H/Ĥ pair "fully
encoded" as "actual Turing machines" "exactly and precisely as in Linz"!
What happened to them I wonder? Oh yes, that was "poetic license"!

And more recently you toyed with the idea that since the theorem was
about Turing machines, you should talk about Turing machines, but that
run-aground when you couldn't persuade anyone that identical TMs take
different transitions with the same input.

Now all we have is the tired old C code (very secret none the less) and
the claim that the wrong answer is the right one because of what /would/
happen if the computation were not what it is. The old "it only halts
because..." and "it wouldn't halt if line 15 were commented out" from a
few years ago.

> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
> then we know it is non-halting.

Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
subjunctive mood? You might also ask yourselves how a call to a C
function that does no I/O has "input". And if you conclude that the
"input" is just a sloppy name for the arguments, you might ask
yourselves what it means to simulate two pointers.

I say you might ask yourselves, because asking PO will be a waste of
time. This sentence may be the culmination of 18 years work, but it is
purposely vague and deliberately uses the wrong words. Don't expect him
to clarify it because he's learned that clarity is his worst enemy.
After all, he's saddled with having said that H(P,P) == false is correct
even though P(P) halts.

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30258&group=comp.theory#30258

 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: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:41:57 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:41:57 -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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me> <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 45
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XaTN3JoImqZOu/mqrmhjXm6RtpPI7m0pcXEscqW2tkePJ6qiDV26SJi6cxMvzs+VuQ1/ovzbfdyIemY!X8TLgxvqqxeCux7iWy8IJzYbpaL1V4oQwCAmX/zj7eJGKNj9f4/7tV8Sk8lsBRty4SRtlxAVP7kZ
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: 3879
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:41 UTC

On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>> then we know it is non-halting.
>
> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
> subjunctive mood?

A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future behavior of
of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and believe that
an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.

To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say that
the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that
it is non-halting.

They would recognize the functional notation of H(P,P) indicating its
input as is standard functional notation for all functions.

_P()
[00000956](01) 55 push ebp
[00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
[0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
The above keeps repeating until aborted

[00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
[0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
[0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]

--
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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30259&group=comp.theory#30259

 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: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 21:54:51 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d24b48f9c0b0cf8c127841564518bd44";
logging-data="15688"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YBvM8guflXn0RsxVq1yER0orOqt+uAv8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fbSHLCB76ZSA69VhFBlLKEZX8yg=
sha1:hKGshmab5dH5gsdYSbVoCxClHX0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.72a4d5ba59c0d179af2b.20220414215451BST.8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:54 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/14/2022 11:40 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>>>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>>>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>>>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
>>>>>> need to try a new ruse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the
>>>>> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two
>>>> pointers. They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they are just
>>>> pointers.
>>>>
>>>> Up until, now I was prepared to take your words metaphorically, but
>>>> since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is
>>>> non-halting" means,
>>>
>>> Sure when I make to to explain ever details many hundreds of times
>>> damned liars will say that I never mentioned any of this.
>> Just use the right terms. H(P,P) has not input. The call has
>> arguments. They are just pointers. Pointers are not halting nor are
>> they non halting. Given that this mantra is the core of what you are
>> now claiming, I would have thought you would want to avoid it being
>> patentent nonsense.
>>
>>> The input to H is the only way that finite strings can be passed to a
>>> "C" function and points to the finite string of the machine code of P.
>> H has no input. Do you mean the two pointer arguments?
>>
>>> The simulating halt decider H uses an x86 emulator to simulate its
>>> input (P,P) and finds that it would never reach its own final state in
>>> an unlimited number of simulated steps.
>>
>> (P,P) is too vague. What needs to be simulated is the first pointer
>> being called as a function with the second as it's argument. I.e. the
>> call P(P) is what should be simulated.
>
> That the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
> own final state proves that this input is not-halting.
>
> Adding all of the tedious details that you suggest does not change
> this fact.

If you add all the corrections, sorry, "tedious details", it contradicts
what you've said in the past. With the errors left in place, the naive
reader won't knowing exactly what's being said -- and I think that's
deliberate.

For example, why talk about simulation at all since simulations of
computations halt or don't halt if and only if the computations do
themselves? Well, it adds yet another puff of smoke to the mirrors
you've got in there already like what that "its" refers to (since
nothing here has a final state), or what non-halting pointers are.

"The input to H(P,P)" should mean the two pointers, P and P. Simulating
them should mean simulating the call P(P) and the simulation "not
reaching its own final state" should mean that the simulation of P(P)
does not halt. And that happens if, and only if, the call P(P) itself
does not halt.

I honestly have no idea if that is what you mean, but if it is, it's
wrong because P(P) halts. You are probably just trying to cover that
up.

>> We all know why you won't say this property. You've said that H(P,P) ==
>> false even though P(P) halts, so you must obscure something or the game
>> is well and truly up.

--
Ben.

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor