On 4/16/22 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 1:26 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 18:04:42 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2022 11:55 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:36:53 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/16/2022 11:32 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:10:44 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/16/22 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:35 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:42:22 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:59 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:31:29 UTC+1, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that idiot is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dying at an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerated rate. He is a troll who lies about everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it will
>>>>>>>>>>>> You think there is no such thing as cancer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drag a dialogue partner along. But I do believe that he is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dying of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> laughter at all the nonsense threads he can generate and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's wrong with that, why is that a rule, and even if it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> rule, why is
>>>>>>>>>>>> it so irritating to you? You would likely be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>> generate more
>>>>>>>>>>>> threads
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you didn't look like a cantakerous jerk, although maybe you
>>>>>>>>>>>> would prefer
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it your way. Your way of acting and presenting yourself,
>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless
>>>>>>>>>>>> of what you think inwardly in your mind and don't say, isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> up to
>>>>>>>>>>>> me, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> your choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure doesn't mean his brain is actually working; it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is auto deluded or it is and he is an utter fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>> His brain sounds fine to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think PO is trolling. He's too persistent for that. And
>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes he
>>>>>>>>>>> makes errors that that make him look foolish, such as saying
>>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> machine needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 steps. That goes
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>> trollish psychology.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> My big issue with Turing machines is that none of them can
>>>>>>>>>> move the tape
>>>>>>>>>> head more than one position at a time. This makes them
>>>>>>>>>> intolerably
>>>>>>>>>> tedious for expressing any significant algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should try to write a few Turing machines, however. An
>>>>>>>>> "even/odd"
>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be too tedious to write. It's hard to present youself
>>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>>> expert on
>>>>>>>>> Turing machines if you've never constructed one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People that are honest can see that the meaning of my words
>>>>>>>> proves that
>>>>>>>> I am correct. If they are not paying enough attention to the
>>>>>>>> meaning of
>>>>>>>> my words because they do not believe that I have credibility
>>>>>>>> this too is
>>>>>>>> dishonesty on their part.
>>>>>>> Nope. You like to use the wrong meaning to words as a way to LIE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The even odd decider would require me to carefully study this 15
>>>>>>>> pages
>>>>>>>> of text: http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone already knows that I can write this because I have
>>>>>>>> specified
>>>>>>>> its correct design. Traverse the finite string of binary digits
>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>> space. Backup one position. If tape location == 0 then even else
>>>>>>>> odd.
>>>>>>> Nope, until you actually show it, we assume that you can't
>>>>>>> because you
>>>>>>> have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding even these
>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Welcome to be proved wrong by you actually posting an answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> PO's description of the principle on which an even/odd decider
>>>>>> could be
>>>>>> built was corrrect. So he's halfway there and should be capable of
>>>>>> doing
>>>>>> the other half, which is actually specifying a machine in some
>>>>>> language,
>>>>>> I've suggested a free online simulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now is his big opportunity to triumph over his detractors. For once,
>>>>>> you will not be able to conclude a post with the word "FAIL".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see if he takes it.
>>>>> That is like not believing that a brain surgeon can change a bed pan
>>>>> until you actually see the brain surgeon change the bed pan.
>>>>>
>>>> I think you are capable of writing an even/odd decider. But others
>>>> maybe don't.
>>>> I do think you would struggle to extend to more complicated machines,
>>>> but writing the even/odd decider would be a start. Then you could try
>>>> something a bit more difficult. It's always the way. No one is let
>>>> loose
>>>> as a brain surgeon on his first day at medical school, or even on
>>>> his first
>>>> day after medical school, though he might have a good idea of the
>>>> principles
>>>> on which brain surgery operates. You start with simple tasks, and,
>>>> after
>>>> achieving them successfully, that gives you the basis on which to
>>>> advance
>>>> a step.
>>> THIS IS THE ONLY POINT THAT I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS:
>>> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
>>> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.
>>> EVERY OTHER POINT IS A DISHONEST DODGE.
>>>
>> Looks like we're not going to get a TM. You must understand that some
>> people
>> will conclude that the real reason is that you are incapable of
>> writing one.
>> I don't think this is true. I think you can do it, but not off pat.
>> You'll need to
>> enter a few machines into the online simulator and run and debug them
>> before
>> you get a working even/odd decider. That's quite normal for someone
>> writing their
>> first machine.
>>
>> Then, for  achnage, everyone will be forced to acknowledge that you
>> are right
>> and Richard (I think said you weee incapable of it) is wrong. Don't
>> you think
>> that would greatly help you?
>
> I only need the God damned liars to quit their God damned lying, all the
> rest is merely one kind of head game or another.
>
> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.
>
> This equally applies to embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejecting its input.
>

On 4/16/2022 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 11:07 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 16:48:51 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/16/2022 10:35 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:42:22 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:59 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:31:29 UTC+1, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that idiot is dying at an
>>>>>>>> accelerated rate. He is a troll who lies about everything if it
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> You think there is no such thing as cancer?
>>>>>>>> drag a dialogue partner along. But I do believe that he is dying of
>>>>>>>> laughter at all the nonsense threads he can generate and
>>>>>>>> support. It
>>>>>>> What's wrong with that, why is that a rule, and even if it is a
>>>>>>> rule, why is
>>>>>>> it so irritating to you? You would likely be able to generate
>>>>>>> more threads
>>>>>>> if you didn't look like a cantakerous jerk, although maybe you
>>>>>>> would prefer
>>>>>>> to do it your way. Your way of acting and presenting yourself,
>>>>>>> regardless
>>>>>>> of what you think inwardly in your mind and don't say, isn't up
>>>>>>> to me, it is
>>>>>>> your choice.
>>>>>>>> sure doesn't mean his brain is actually working; it probably
>>>>>>>> isn't and
>>>>>>>> he is auto deluded or it is and he is an utter fool.
>>>>>>> His brain sounds fine to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think PO is trolling. He's too persistent for that. And
>>>>>> sometimes he
>>>>>> makes errors that that make him look foolish, such as saying that
>>>>>> a Turing
>>>>>> machine needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 steps. That goes
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> trollish psychology.
>>>>>>
>>>>> My big issue with Turing machines is that none of them can move the
>>>>> tape
>>>>> head more than one position at a time. This makes them intolerably
>>>>> tedious for expressing any significant algorithm.
>>>>>
>>>> You should try to write a few Turing machines, however. An
>>>> "even/odd" decider
>>>> shouldn't be too tedious to write. It's hard to present youself as
>>>> an expert on
>>>> Turing machines if you've never constructed one.
>>> People that are honest can see that the meaning of my words proves that
>>> I am correct. If they are not paying enough attention to the meaning of
>>> my words because they do not believe that I have credibility this too is
>>> dishonesty on their part.
>>>
>>> The even odd decider would require me to carefully study this 15 pages
>>> of text: http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt
>>>
>> I suggest you try this site.
>>
>> https://turingmachinesimulator.com/
>>
>> If you've problems with the syntax, I'm sure that there will be plenty
>> of people
>> here happy to help. It doesn't require reading a lot of instructions.
>
> That is 100% perfectly moot.
> The following conclusively proves that I am correct.
> I only need the God damned liars to quit their God damned lying.
>
> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.
>
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>
>

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

"B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:21:53 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>> >> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:17:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > It is a sufficient reason to say that H is non-halting, but how would
>> >> > H, the algorithm itself, report that?
>> >> By returning false. The key case PO obsesses about is H(P,P) with P
>> >> defined as, very roughly
>> >>
>> >> void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) while (1); }
>> >>
>> >> PO tells us, contrary to the facts, that H(P,P) == false is correct even
>> >> though P(P) obviously "halts" (i.e. returns in this C formulation).
>> >
>> > Although I am not familiar with the idea of inputting functions to
>> > functions in C, and have never seen "ptr" as the syntax for pointers
>> It's a typedef name. There was another post where I included the
>> definition, but since PO uses an integer, the type is not agreed upon.
>> Hence the "very roughly".
>> > (I don't like pointers and haven't used them in a while, but usually I
>> > used * in school), but you would appear to have said something
>> > incorrect...it looks like P(P) would not halt because H, presumably a
>> > direct simulator of P on P until P halts on its input, would never
>> > halt, thus P would never return at all...it would never halt.
>> H is supposed to be a halt decider (if only for this one case) so it
>> must return. The one thing it can't do is act like a pure simulator.
>>
>> PO does sometimes flip to claiming that the call to H in P won't return
>> (while saying that a top-level call will) but that's really just a case
>> of PO saying what's needed to get out of a bind. H must return the same
>> result, for the same arguments values, no matter where it is called from.
>> > Ahh, the thrill of victory...it's like playing Pendulum Castle [1],
>> > but easier, from Super Mario once again.
>> What victory?
>
> The victory of accuracy. I won, the concession is implicit; it's a
> proof by inspection. You might want to concede to avoid getting
> pegged as "an Obama-oid."

I am very happy for you. Do you now see why PO is wrong?

--
Ben.

On 4/16/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:21:53 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>>>>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:17:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a sufficient reason to say that H is non-halting, but how would
>>>>>> H, the algorithm itself, report that?
>>>>> By returning false. The key case PO obsesses about is H(P,P) with P
>>>>> defined as, very roughly
>>>>>
>>>>> void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) while (1); }
>>>>>
>>>>> PO tells us, contrary to the facts, that H(P,P) == false is correct even
>>>>> though P(P) obviously "halts" (i.e. returns in this C formulation).
>>>>
>>>> Although I am not familiar with the idea of inputting functions to
>>>> functions in C, and have never seen "ptr" as the syntax for pointers
>>> It's a typedef name. There was another post where I included the
>>> definition, but since PO uses an integer, the type is not agreed upon.
>>> Hence the "very roughly".
>>>> (I don't like pointers and haven't used them in a while, but usually I
>>>> used * in school), but you would appear to have said something
>>>> incorrect...it looks like P(P) would not halt because H, presumably a
>>>> direct simulator of P on P until P halts on its input, would never
>>>> halt, thus P would never return at all...it would never halt.
>>> H is supposed to be a halt decider (if only for this one case) so it
>>> must return. The one thing it can't do is act like a pure simulator.
>>>
>>> PO does sometimes flip to claiming that the call to H in P won't return
>>> (while saying that a top-level call will) but that's really just a case
>>> of PO saying what's needed to get out of a bind. H must return the same
>>> result, for the same arguments values, no matter where it is called from.
>>>> Ahh, the thrill of victory...it's like playing Pendulum Castle [1],
>>>> but easier, from Super Mario once again.
>>> What victory?
>>
>> The victory of accuracy. I won, the concession is implicit; it's a
>> proof by inspection. You might want to concede to avoid getting
>> pegged as "an Obama-oid."
>
> I am very happy for you. Do you now see why PO is wrong?
>

If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
code at machine address [000009d6] by H would show some correct
execution trace from machine address [000009d6] ending at machine
address [000009f0].

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

That everyone refuses this challenge proves that it is beyond their
technical capacity or that they are liars.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 4/16/22 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>> "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:21:53 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>>>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:17:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a sufficient reason to say that H is non-halting, but how
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> H, the algorithm itself, report that?
>>>>>> By returning false. The key case PO obsesses about is H(P,P) with P
>>>>>> defined as, very roughly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) while (1); }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PO tells us, contrary to the facts, that H(P,P) == false is
>>>>>> correct even
>>>>>> though P(P) obviously "halts" (i.e. returns in this C formulation).
>>>>>
>>>>> Although I am not familiar with the idea of inputting functions to
>>>>> functions in C, and have never seen "ptr" as the syntax for pointers
>>>> It's a typedef name. There was another post where I included the
>>>> definition, but since PO uses an integer, the type is not agreed upon.
>>>> Hence the "very roughly".
>>>>> (I don't like pointers and haven't used them in a while, but usually I
>>>>> used * in school), but you would appear to have said something
>>>>> incorrect...it looks like P(P) would not halt because H, presumably a
>>>>> direct simulator of P on P until P halts on its input, would never
>>>>> halt, thus P would never return at all...it would never halt.
>>>> H is supposed to be a halt decider (if only for this one case) so it
>>>> must return. The one thing it can't do is act like a pure simulator.
>>>>
>>>> PO does sometimes flip to claiming that the call to H in P won't return
>>>> (while saying that a top-level call will) but that's really just a case
>>>> of PO saying what's needed to get out of a bind. H must return the same
>>>> result, for the same arguments values, no matter where it is called
>>>> from.
>>>>> Ahh, the thrill of victory...it's like playing Pendulum Castle [1],
>>>>> but easier, from Super Mario once again.
>>>> What victory?
>>>
>>> The victory of accuracy.  I won, the concession is implicit; it's a
>>> proof by inspection.  You might want to concede to avoid getting
>>> pegged as "an Obama-oid."
>>
>> I am very happy for you.  Do you now see why PO is wrong?
>>
>
> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
> code at machine address [000009d6] by H would show some correct
> execution trace from machine address [000009d6] ending at machine
> address [000009f0].
>
> _P()
> [000009d6](01) 55         push ebp
> [000009d7](02) 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000009d9](03) 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000009dc](01) 50         push eax         // push P
> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000009e0](01) 51         push ecx         // push P
> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826    // call H
> [000009e6](03) 83c408     add esp,+08
> [000009e9](02) 85c0       test eax,eax
> [000009eb](02) 7402       jz 000009ef
> [000009ed](02) ebfe       jmp 000009ed
> [000009ef](01) 5d         pop ebp
> [000009f0](01) c3         ret              // Final state
> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
>
> That everyone refuses this challenge proves that it is beyond their
> technical capacity or that they are liars.
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>
>

So what is at 826, with out that we can't run the machine.

But the trace WOULD be

[000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
[000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
[000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
// Since you have defined that H returns Non-Halting, the above call
// WILL return the value 0.
[000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef, eax is zero, so will jump

[000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
[000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/15/2022 5:31 PM, Ben wrote:
>> "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:17:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> It is a sufficient reason to say that H is non-halting, but how would
>>> H, the algorithm itself, report that?
>> By returning false. The key case PO obsesses about is H(P,P) with P
>> defined as, very roughly
>> void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) while (1); }
>> PO tells us, contrary to the facts, that H(P,P) == false is correct even
>> though P(P) obviously "halts" (i.e. returns in this C formulation).
>
> The fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting is complete proof
> that H(P,P)===false is correct by logical necessity.

Changing the words from those of the problem you have claimed to
addressing for 18 years suggests you are up to something. Fortunately
you were clear a few years ago so we know what you are up to.

--
Ben.

On 4/16/2022 7:37 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/15/2022 5:31 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:17:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a sufficient reason to say that H is non-halting, but how would
>>>> H, the algorithm itself, report that?
>>> By returning false. The key case PO obsesses about is H(P,P) with P
>>> defined as, very roughly
>>> void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) while (1); }
>>> PO tells us, contrary to the facts, that H(P,P) == false is correct even
>>> though P(P) obviously "halts" (i.e. returns in this C formulation).
>>
>> The fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting is complete proof
>> that H(P,P)===false is correct by logical necessity.
>
> Changing the words from those of the problem you have claimed to
> addressing for 18 years suggests you are up to something. Fortunately
> you were clear a few years ago so we know what you are up to.
>

If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
code at machine address [000009d6] by H would show some correct
execution trace from machine address [000009d6] ending at machine
address [000009f0].

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

That everyone refuses this challenge proves that it is beyond their
technical capacity or that they are liars.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 4/16/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 7:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/15/2022 5:31 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:17:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is a sufficient reason to say that H is non-halting, but how would
>>>>> H, the algorithm itself, report that?
>>>> By returning false.  The key case PO obsesses about is H(P,P) with P
>>>> defined as, very roughly
>>>>     void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) while (1); }
>>>> PO tells us, contrary to the facts, that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>> even
>>>> though P(P) obviously "halts" (i.e. returns in this C formulation).
>>>
>>> The fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting is complete proof
>>> that H(P,P)===false is correct by logical necessity.
>>
>> Changing the words from those of the problem you have claimed to
>> addressing for 18 years suggests you are up to something.  Fortunately
>> you were clear a few years ago so we know what you are up to.
>>
>
>
> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
> code at machine address [000009d6] by H would show some correct
> execution trace from machine address [000009d6] ending at machine
> address [000009f0].
>
> _P()
> [000009d6](01) 55         push ebp
> [000009d7](02) 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000009d9](03) 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000009dc](01) 50         push eax         // push P
> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000009e0](01) 51         push ecx         // push P
> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826    // call H
> [000009e6](03) 83c408     add esp,+08
> [000009e9](02) 85c0       test eax,eax
> [000009eb](02) 7402       jz 000009ef
> [000009ed](02) ebfe       jmp 000009ed
> [000009ef](01) 5d         pop ebp
> [000009f0](01) c3         ret              // Final state
> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
>
> That everyone refuses this challenge proves that it is beyond their
> technical capacity or that they are liars.

No, YOU LIE because it HAS been answered, several times.

You just prove you can't read.

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

So what is at 826, with out that we can't run the machine.

But the trace WOULD be

[000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
[000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
[000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
// Since you have defined that H returns Non-Halting, the above call
// WILL return the value 0.
[000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef, eax is zero, so will jump

[000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
[000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state

On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 19:35:07 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> On 4/16/2022 1:26 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 18:04:42 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/16/2022 11:55 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:36:53 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/16/2022 11:32 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:10:44 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/16/22 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:35 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:42:22 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:59 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:31:29 UTC+1, B.H. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that idiot is dying at an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> accelerated rate. He is a troll who lies about everything if it will
> >>>>>>>>>>> You think there is no such thing as cancer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> drag a dialogue partner along. But I do believe that he is dying of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> laughter at all the nonsense threads he can generate and support. It
> >>>>>>>>>>> What's wrong with that, why is that a rule, and even if it is a
> >>>>>>>>>>> rule, why is
> >>>>>>>>>>> it so irritating to you? You would likely be able to generate more
> >>>>>>>>>>> threads
> >>>>>>>>>>> if you didn't look like a cantakerous jerk, although maybe you
> >>>>>>>>>>> would prefer
> >>>>>>>>>>> to do it your way. Your way of acting and presenting yourself,
> >>>>>>>>>>> regardless
> >>>>>>>>>>> of what you think inwardly in your mind and don't say, isn't up to
> >>>>>>>>>>> me, it is
> >>>>>>>>>>> your choice.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sure doesn't mean his brain is actually working; it probably isn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> he is auto deluded or it is and he is an utter fool.
> >>>>>>>>>>> His brain sounds fine to me.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think PO is trolling. He's too persistent for that. And
> >>>>>>>>>> sometimes he
> >>>>>>>>>> makes errors that that make him look foolish, such as saying that a
> >>>>>>>>>> Turing
> >>>>>>>>>> machine needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 steps. That goes
> >>>>>>>>>> against
> >>>>>>>>>> trollish psychology.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My big issue with Turing machines is that none of them can move the tape
> >>>>>>>>> head more than one position at a time. This makes them intolerably
> >>>>>>>>> tedious for expressing any significant algorithm.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You should try to write a few Turing machines, however. An "even/odd"
> >>>>>>>> decider
> >>>>>>>> shouldn't be too tedious to write. It's hard to present youself as an
> >>>>>>>> expert on
> >>>>>>>> Turing machines if you've never constructed one.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> People that are honest can see that the meaning of my words proves that
> >>>>>>> I am correct. If they are not paying enough attention to the meaning of
> >>>>>>> my words because they do not believe that I have credibility this too is
> >>>>>>> dishonesty on their part.
> >>>>>> Nope. You like to use the wrong meaning to words as a way to LIE.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The even odd decider would require me to carefully study this 15 pages
> >>>>>>> of text: http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Everyone already knows that I can write this because I have specified
> >>>>>>> its correct design. Traverse the finite string of binary digits until
> >>>>>>> space. Backup one position. If tape location == 0 then even else odd.
> >>>>>> Nope, until you actually show it, we assume that you can't because you
> >>>>>> have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding even these simple
> >>>>>> things.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Welcome to be proved wrong by you actually posting an answer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> PO's description of the principle on which an even/odd decider could be
> >>>>> built was corrrect. So he's halfway there and should be capable of doing
> >>>>> the other half, which is actually specifying a machine in some language,
> >>>>> I've suggested a free online simulator.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now is his big opportunity to triumph over his detractors. For once,
> >>>>> you will not be able to conclude a post with the word "FAIL".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let's see if he takes it.
> >>>> That is like not believing that a brain surgeon can change a bed pan
> >>>> until you actually see the brain surgeon change the bed pan.
> >>>>
> >>> I think you are capable of writing an even/odd decider. But others
> >>> maybe don't.
> >>> I do think you would struggle to extend to more complicated machines,
> >>> but writing the even/odd decider would be a start. Then you could try
> >>> something a bit more difficult. It's always the way. No one is let loose
> >>> as a brain surgeon on his first day at medical school, or even on his first
> >>> day after medical school, though he might have a good idea of the principles
> >>> on which brain surgery operates. You start with simple tasks, and, after
> >>> achieving them successfully, that gives you the basis on which to advance
> >>> a step.
> >> THIS IS THE ONLY POINT THAT I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS:
> >> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
> >> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.
> >> EVERY OTHER POINT IS A DISHONEST DODGE.
> >>
> > Looks like we're not going to get a TM. You must understand that some people
> > will conclude that the real reason is that you are incapable of writing one.
> > I don't think this is true. I think you can do it, but not off pat. You'll need to
> > enter a few machines into the online simulator and run and debug them before
> > you get a working even/odd decider. That's quite normal for someone writing their
> > first machine.
> >
> > Then, for achnage, everyone will be forced to acknowledge that you are right
> > and Richard (I think said you weee incapable of it) is wrong. Don't you think
> > that would greatly help you?
> I only need the God damned liars to quit their God damned lying, all the
> rest is merely one kind of head game or another.
> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.
> This equally applies to embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejecting its input.
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>
Writing a machine is not a "head game".

On 4/17/2022 5:03 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 19:35:07 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 1:26 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 18:04:42 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 11:55 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:36:53 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 11:32 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:10:44 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/22 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:35 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:42:22 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:59 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:31:29 UTC+1, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that idiot is dying at an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerated rate. He is a troll who lies about everything if it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think there is no such thing as cancer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drag a dialogue partner along. But I do believe that he is dying of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laughter at all the nonsense threads he can generate and support. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's wrong with that, why is that a rule, and even if it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule, why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it so irritating to you? You would likely be able to generate more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you didn't look like a cantakerous jerk, although maybe you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would prefer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it your way. Your way of acting and presenting yourself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what you think inwardly in your mind and don't say, isn't up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure doesn't mean his brain is actually working; it probably isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is auto deluded or it is and he is an utter fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> His brain sounds fine to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think PO is trolling. He's too persistent for that. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes he
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes errors that that make him look foolish, such as saying that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 steps. That goes
>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>> trollish psychology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My big issue with Turing machines is that none of them can move the tape
>>>>>>>>>>> head more than one position at a time. This makes them intolerably
>>>>>>>>>>> tedious for expressing any significant algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You should try to write a few Turing machines, however. An "even/odd"
>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be too tedious to write. It's hard to present youself as an
>>>>>>>>>> expert on
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines if you've never constructed one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People that are honest can see that the meaning of my words proves that
>>>>>>>>> I am correct. If they are not paying enough attention to the meaning of
>>>>>>>>> my words because they do not believe that I have credibility this too is
>>>>>>>>> dishonesty on their part.
>>>>>>>> Nope. You like to use the wrong meaning to words as a way to LIE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The even odd decider would require me to carefully study this 15 pages
>>>>>>>>> of text: http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone already knows that I can write this because I have specified
>>>>>>>>> its correct design. Traverse the finite string of binary digits until
>>>>>>>>> space. Backup one position. If tape location == 0 then even else odd.
>>>>>>>> Nope, until you actually show it, we assume that you can't because you
>>>>>>>> have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding even these simple
>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Welcome to be proved wrong by you actually posting an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PO's description of the principle on which an even/odd decider could be
>>>>>>> built was corrrect. So he's halfway there and should be capable of doing
>>>>>>> the other half, which is actually specifying a machine in some language,
>>>>>>> I've suggested a free online simulator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now is his big opportunity to triumph over his detractors. For once,
>>>>>>> you will not be able to conclude a post with the word "FAIL".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see if he takes it.
>>>>>> That is like not believing that a brain surgeon can change a bed pan
>>>>>> until you actually see the brain surgeon change the bed pan.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are capable of writing an even/odd decider. But others
>>>>> maybe don't.
>>>>> I do think you would struggle to extend to more complicated machines,
>>>>> but writing the even/odd decider would be a start. Then you could try
>>>>> something a bit more difficult. It's always the way. No one is let loose
>>>>> as a brain surgeon on his first day at medical school, or even on his first
>>>>> day after medical school, though he might have a good idea of the principles
>>>>> on which brain surgery operates. You start with simple tasks, and, after
>>>>> achieving them successfully, that gives you the basis on which to advance
>>>>> a step.
>>>> THIS IS THE ONLY POINT THAT I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS:
>>>> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
>>>> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.
>>>> EVERY OTHER POINT IS A DISHONEST DODGE.
>>>>
>>> Looks like we're not going to get a TM. You must understand that some people
>>> will conclude that the real reason is that you are incapable of writing one.
>>> I don't think this is true. I think you can do it, but not off pat. You'll need to
>>> enter a few machines into the online simulator and run and debug them before
>>> you get a working even/odd decider. That's quite normal for someone writing their
>>> first machine.
>>>
>>> Then, for achnage, everyone will be forced to acknowledge that you are right
>>> and Richard (I think said you weee incapable of it) is wrong. Don't you think
>>> that would greatly help you?

>> I only need the God damned liars to quit their God damned lying, all the
>> rest is merely one kind of head game or another.

>> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
>> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.

>> This equally applies to embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejecting its input.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>
> Writing a machine is not a "head game".