Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The devil finds work for idle circuits to do.


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)

<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30168&group=comp.theory#30168

 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 22:35:27 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 22:35:20 -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>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.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>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 176
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vpujdAOJfE3qy0L/olStWX1aALv1uvFcvZfrtsCwwIHx4ixJuerLT1nG+ba4DmmybJVZ8SA78uwsHPo!tYpkyeLgu9KLZi2HJF0yJqN0Kb38NvcFbuwQsEterZYiAP1RkJlW7kE/hcLkOvSloNi5+CSUir3A
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: 11454
 by: olcott - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 03:35 UTC

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.


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

<t35kr0$ekd$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30172&group=comp.theory#30172

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 22:50:38 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <t35kr0$ekd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
<YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>
<XvGdncOXFMTdnMj_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t34ngr$fiu$1@dont-email.me>
<ba6dna8bcJvAeMj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t34p6i$tip$1@dont-email.me>
<m7-dnTVSf9INdsj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 04:50:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="7497f39c03db29422655c9aa86425e35";
logging-data="14989"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BIDZrnltIU1qhlf5U6h4a"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yIxRSsPnm6u+wxuOdVobWdr9yb0=
In-Reply-To: <m7-dnTVSf9INdsj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 04:50 UTC

On 2022-04-12 15:13, olcott wrote:
> On 4/12/2022 3:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-12 14:47, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2022 3:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 22:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 11:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 11:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Page 237
>>>>>>>>>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>> number of moves.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something
>>>>>>>>>> which you simply did not understand.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified)
>>>>>>>>>>> moves
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens
>>>>>>>>>>> here".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is
>>>>>>>>>> required to do rather than HOW it does that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if you don't even know *how* to read a specification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is untrue, yet now we have complete x86 source-code, not
>>>>>>> merely ⊢* AKA some-thing-or-other-goes-here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that is *not* what it means. This specification:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> The above line is *not* anything I wrote. If you're going to quote
>>>> me at least leave the text intact.
>>>>
>>>>> The claim is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> How can that be 'the claim' given that Ĥ is not even claimed to
>>>> answer any specific question? You can't be wrong unless there is
>>>> some question you claim to be answering.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> The claim is that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
>>
>> No. The claim is that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must get the wrong answer if Ĥ is
>> derived from H in the manner specified by the proof. What you call
>> "embedded_H" is not even a Turing Machine; it is simply *part* of Ĥ,
>> and Ĥ is not a decider so it can neither be right nor wrong.
>>
>
> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
> therefore embedded_H is impossibly incorrect.
>
>> André
>>
>>> I prove that embedded_H correctly maps the actual simulated behavior
>>> of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to its own reject state.
>>>
>>> When the analogous proof of H(P,P) is examined all opinions to the
>>> contrary are conclusively proven to be counter-factual.
>>>
>>> The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its own
>>> final state.
>>
>> No. The correctly simulated input to H(P, P) *does* reach a final state.
>
> That is counter-factual:
> 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

This trace fails to show this (or really anything, for that matter).
There's nothing in this trace that shows where or how a decision to
abort is made; it doesn't show what actually happens at the routine at
address 826, which means we have no idea what the result of the test
instruction at 969 will be.

And, as I noted previously, this trace does *not* correspond to the H/P
you keep talking about since there is no evidence that simulation is
occurring here. You said you'd provide more details, but that was, I
suspect, simply an empty promise on your part.

André

> [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]
>
>
>

--
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 ]

<3PmdncoQDIRHysv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30173&group=comp.theory#30173

 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:55:54 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:55:48 -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>
<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>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
<YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>
<XvGdncOXFMTdnMj_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t34ngr$fiu$1@dont-email.me>
<ba6dna8bcJvAeMj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t34p6i$tip$1@dont-email.me>
<m7-dnTVSf9INdsj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t35kr0$ekd$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t35kr0$ekd$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3PmdncoQDIRHysv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 148
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IZmOr245YJjc2sGSwMOzbdsi5YsTHmQnzMsii0oN3v5p4z7MCTgDa+h8y1ztPPARFEOx0h67ig6Dqh/!vwuRo7rn1gfSs3SmUphlbcI/IrDJm8Dt76tipjzE+sDYfrjvQ25HJ30bHFCBX1wdrB3XWkhQbRdD
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: 8235
 by: olcott - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 04:55 UTC

On 4/12/2022 11:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-12 15:13, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/12/2022 3:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-12 14:47, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2022 3:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-11 22:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 11:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 11:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Page 237
>>>>>>>>>>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>> number of moves.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something
>>>>>>>>>>> which you simply did not understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of
>>>>>>>>>>>> (unspecified) moves
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens
>>>>>>>>>>>> here".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is
>>>>>>>>>>> required to do rather than HOW it does that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if you don't even know *how* to read a specification
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is untrue, yet now we have complete x86 source-code, not
>>>>>>>> merely ⊢* AKA some-thing-or-other-goes-here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that is *not* what it means. This specification:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> The above line is *not* anything I wrote. If you're going to quote
>>>>> me at least leave the text intact.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The claim is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can that be 'the claim' given that Ĥ is not even claimed to
>>>>> answer any specific question? You can't be wrong unless there is
>>>>> some question you claim to be answering.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The claim is that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> No. The claim is that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must get the wrong answer if Ĥ is
>>> derived from H in the manner specified by the proof. What you call
>>> "embedded_H" is not even a Turing Machine; it is simply *part* of Ĥ,
>>> and Ĥ is not a decider so it can neither be right nor wrong.
>>>
>>
>> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
>> therefore embedded_H is impossibly incorrect.
>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>> I prove that embedded_H correctly maps the actual simulated behavior
>>>> of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to its own reject state.
>>>>
>>>> When the analogous proof of H(P,P) is examined all opinions to the
>>>> contrary are conclusively proven to be counter-factual.
>>>>
>>>> The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its own
>>>> final state.
>>>
>>> No. The correctly simulated input to H(P, P) *does* reach a final state.
>>
>> That is counter-factual:
>> 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
>
> This trace fails to show this (or really anything, for that matter).
> There's nothing in this trace that shows where or how a decision to
> abort is made; it doesn't show what actually happens at the routine at
> address 826, which means we have no idea what the result of the test
> instruction at 969 will be.
>

All of these things are purely extraneous details. The only thing that
matters if whether or not he input to H(P,P) could reach its own final
state.

> And, as I noted previously, this trace does *not* correspond to the H/P
> you keep talking about since there is no evidence that simulation is
> occurring here. You said you'd provide more details, but that was, I
> suspect, simply an empty promise on your part.
>
> André
>
>> [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 ][ back door ]

<ATx5K.359899$f2a5.1953@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30175&group=comp.theory#30175

 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!fx48.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>
<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>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
<YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>
<XvGdncOXFMTdnMj_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t34ngr$fiu$1@dont-email.me>
<ba6dna8bcJvAeMj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t34p6i$tip$1@dont-email.me>
<m7-dnTVSf9INdsj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t35kr0$ekd$1@dont-email.me>
<3PmdncoQDIRHysv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <3PmdncoQDIRHysv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <ATx5K.359899$f2a5.1953@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:48:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8412
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:48 UTC

On 4/13/22 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/12/2022 11:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-12 15:13, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2022 3:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-12 14:47, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 3:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 22:34, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 11:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 11:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Page 237
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary number of moves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something
>>>>>>>>>>>> which you simply did not understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (unspecified) moves
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> here".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is
>>>>>>>>>>>> required to do rather than HOW it does that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if you don't even know *how* to read a specification
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is untrue, yet now we have complete x86 source-code, not
>>>>>>>>> merely ⊢* AKA some-thing-or-other-goes-here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that is *not* what it means. This specification:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above line is *not* anything I wrote. If you're going to quote
>>>>>> me at least leave the text intact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The claim is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can that be 'the claim' given that Ĥ is not even claimed to
>>>>>> answer any specific question? You can't be wrong unless there is
>>>>>> some question you claim to be answering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The claim is that embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> No. The claim is that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must get the wrong answer if Ĥ is
>>>> derived from H in the manner specified by the proof. What you call
>>>> "embedded_H" is not even a Turing Machine; it is simply *part* of Ĥ,
>>>> and Ĥ is not a decider so it can neither be right nor wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
>>> therefore embedded_H is impossibly incorrect.
>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>>> I prove that embedded_H correctly maps the actual simulated
>>>>> behavior of its input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to its own reject state.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the analogous proof of H(P,P) is examined all opinions to the
>>>>> contrary are conclusively proven to be counter-factual.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its own
>>>>> final state.
>>>>
>>>> No. The correctly simulated input to H(P, P) *does* reach a final
>>>> state.
>>>
>>> That is counter-factual:
>>> 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
>>
>> This trace fails to show this (or really anything, for that matter).
>> There's nothing in this trace that shows where or how a decision to
>> abort is made; it doesn't show what actually happens at the routine at
>> address 826, which means we have no idea what the result of the test
>> instruction at 969 will be.
>>
>
> All of these things are purely extraneous details. The only thing that
> matters if whether or not he input to H(P,P) could reach its own final
> state.

Nope, they show you aren't doing what you actually claim.

For instance, a CORRECT trace shows ALL of the actions of the machine,
so that would include the behavior of the copy of H that is inside the
program P.

Your ommission, shows you don't understand that.

My guess is that H doesn't actually exist as a complete working program.

FAIL.

>
>> And, as I noted previously, this trace does *not* correspond to the
>> H/P you keep talking about since there is no evidence that simulation
>> is occurring here. You said you'd provide more details, but that was,
>> I suspect, simply an empty promise on your part.
>>
>> André
>>
>>> [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]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

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

<7Vx5K.359900$f2a5.326322@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30176&group=comp.theory#30176

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.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>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 214
Message-ID: <7Vx5K.359900$f2a5.326322@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:49:39 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 11611
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:49 UTC

On 4/12/22 11:23 PM, 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.
>


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)

<SXx5K.359901$f2a5.178487@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30177&group=comp.theory#30177

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.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>
<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.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>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 235
Message-ID: <SXx5K.359901$f2a5.178487@fx48.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:52:34 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 12572
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:52 UTC

On 4/12/22 11:35 PM, 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.
>
>


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)

<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30179&group=comp.theory#30179

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d8e:b0:444:3f1a:7c4b with SMTP id e14-20020a0562140d8e00b004443f1a7c4bmr14142242qve.82.1649850323773;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 04:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:238b:0:b0:2eb:fd76:29f8 with SMTP id
j133-20020a81238b000000b002ebfd7629f8mr15033906ywj.472.1649850323604; Wed, 13
Apr 2022 04:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 04:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@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>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.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>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:45:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 233
 by: Dennis Bush - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:45 UTC

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.


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)

<asOdnYtjV4Khe8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30181&group=comp.theory#30181

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:03:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:03:24 -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>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.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>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <asOdnYtjV4Khe8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 188
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Vit4myptqdVTy9Vit8jtAxULldE0eSOJgRllPcHnk1zoMA7amrrrN7UMLW+rqQnSspVS7cLc55AlZfE!WIqYRV6+3yUa11hDEsivTFMI30JPLLXR7v98bwm4Q6us9fcIO/hHFf9buH4C/P+1hiaJpoYDuHG/
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: 12301
 by: olcott - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:03 UTC

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.


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)

<87h76xvvor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30182&group=comp.theory#30182

 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 16:40:04 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <87h76xvvor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmhyaun.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<wrCdnb3uw-Cnp8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8ce83df1a65fb778a5838b266a1c132c";
logging-data="10149"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XXLkQhFq3JauD/pdXoycmyOz6ptJWUyQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rGD4Tse/Mh7DJjbt8+O+kuvn/uw=
sha1:GCDe6nF0r7xo8GXItPBNSb68yNU=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.dc48bd4888e9e109ceac.20220413164004BST.87h76xvvor.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:40 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/12/2022 9:29 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Deception alert: "would" rather than "does".
>
> A simulating halt decider cannot wait for an otherwise infinite
> sequence of configurations to end, so "would" is correct.

Yes, I know. That's why I drew attention to the deception rather than
saying that you didn't mean it. You do mean it. What matters (for the
halting problem) is what is the case, but you need to persuade people
that what matters is what would happen in another case -- the old line
15 commented out ruse.

So, yes, you are correct to use that deceptive word.

>> Also, delete "correctly".
>
> Without the word "correctly" People simply stick to the view that it
> must be incorrect. I would use a different language for academia.

No. Everyone here knows what a simulation is. And I am an academic.
Why you wold not write correctly for me?

>> You only need an adverb in the exceptional case: "incorrectly
>> simulated", "partially simulated". Also the "input" to H are it's
>> parameters. The parameters are both C pointers. What does it mean to
>> simulate two pointers?
>
> We can't actually pass a finite string to a "C" function so we have to
> use pointers to strings.

That is one of the silliest things you have ever written. Of course you
can pass a string to a C function. Indeed I urged you to do this years
ago, but that was when you thought the encoding was an irrelevance.

The substantive point you ignore, of course. There's no problem using
pointers (or strings), but simulating pointers is meaningless. But this
is poetic language and I can guess what you mean.

>> And "final state" is a term from Turing machines
>> but H and P are C functions.
>
> I mean in in a perfectly analogous way.

I know. It's a lovely poetic usage. Now that you can't write math
poems (using that notation you've never understood), you will have to
write English language poems. If you were writing precisely, these
would be category errors, but since you a being poetic, it's fine.
We'll just guess what you meant to say.

>> I'd re-word it in a sane way, but you'd reject my re-wording (I know
>> because I did in a few years ago). This is all old hat.
>>
>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>> No. You don't know what it is, but it's not incorrect. You could try
>> to say what it is, but I doubt you can without the long list of category
>> errors above.
>
> I have already quoted this very many dozens of times:
>
>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>> its own final state?
>>
>> Simulating P(P) and calling P(P) have the same halting status. They
>> both halt or neither halts.
>
> I never bring this up because it always causes a short-circuit in your
> brain: The execution of P(P) is not computationally equivalent to the
> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).

They are computationally equivalent in some ways and not in others. In
the way that matters -- the halting status -- they are.

> That is why I focus on the X proves Y

I don't think you have ever proved anything in your life.

> (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)

No you can't. (Well in some sense you can, since the computation fails
to meet Linz definition of a computation at all, never mind one that
halt or indeed one that does not.)

But reading this poetically -- by analogy with a TM -- you are wrong.
Simulating the computation represented by the parameters to H will halt.
We know this because you told us that P(P) halts and simulations halt or
not just like the computations they are simulations of.

> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.

The definition of what is correct that you should be working to defines
H(M,I) == true if, and only if, M(I) halts (and false otherwise)

Your definition permits H(M,I) == false is M(I) would not halt if H were
not exactly as it really is. No one cares about that. No has cared
about for years since you first true to pull that one.

Note that switching the definition does not make the problem go away.
The halting problem -- the one where H(P,P) == false is wrong because
P(P) halts -- is still there. You are simply not talking about it.

> I CAN'T POSSIBLE BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR
> Y.

You are wrong about both. A typical score.

--
Ben.

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

<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30183&group=comp.theory#30183

 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 16:44:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8ce83df1a65fb778a5838b266a1c132c";
logging-data="10149"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qU5Eqc5UrgHMKI2A3FvfRHIcvABPbw2s="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:76vBkSwDq+y6Aa+CAWK7+nnA798=
sha1:rmN9cBSEzRCighEbdqZA3HBf/8I=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.8bf13f9e8d45f31ad57f.20220413164402BST.87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:44 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/12/2022 9:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2022 8:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:47 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:09 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
>>>>>>>>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that
>>>>>>>>> they are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for
>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's good because you have been 100% clear about H. It's wrong
>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts (according to you) and H(P,P) == false (according to
>>>>>>>> you).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you insist that a halt decider must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>> non-inputs: P(P) when you know that it only computes the mapping from
>>>>>>> inputs H(P,P) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't. H takes arguments (what you insist on calling inputs) and maps
>>>>>> them to a result. The correct result is defined by people who know what
>>>>>> the halting problem is -- you don't get to decide. You may never
>>>>>> understand the specification, but you only need to know one fact about
>>>>>> it: mapping the "inputs" P and P to false is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in other words you are saying that mere opinions carry more weight
>>>>> than the following verified fact:
>>>>
>>>> The facts that (a) H(P,P) == false and (b) P(P) halts are not in dispute
>>>> (so far as I know). That H mapping P and P to false is wrong is a
>>>> matter of definition. There are no opinions being expressed here at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> So you agree that an input that never halts is a halting computation.
>> Don't be silly. As the culmination of 17 years of work, this looks
>> pathetic. Either retract one of your previously asserted facts (that
>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) == false) or say that your H is not deciding
>> halting, but something else.
>>
>
> That is why I focus on the X proves Y

You don't know what a proof is, remember? You still think that if
{A,B,C} ⊦ X then {A,B,C,~X} ⊬ X.

> (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)

No.

> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.

No.

> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR
> Y.

Both. I give more detail (if you are interested) in another reply.

--
Ben.

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

<9-mdnV5Bfvy3bsv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30184&group=comp.theory#30184

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:58:34 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:58:33 -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
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmhyaun.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <wrCdnb3uw-Cnp8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h76xvvor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87h76xvvor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <9-mdnV5Bfvy3bsv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 29
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-yxyL5iY23e52VFBTZ0inDMoXXQ6u/ud24pHZBaBvPCYLkVslOTnAf5RZrWp8ovLdOdLbQAZcy3QnPh5!YuARi/mm7L+nfHIBlPYR4YRDA78Aabe1M23DEH8b/8VgGNyMpK74Adfg+CpEyJ/KVJeOSfunqz1h
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: 2940
 by: olcott - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:58 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:40 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>

>> I never bring this up because it always causes a short-circuit in your
>> brain: The execution of P(P) is not computationally equivalent to the
>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>
> They are computationally equivalent in some ways and not in others. In
> the way that matters -- the halting status -- they are.
>

So you are saying that two distinctly different computations must have
the same halting behavior. THAT IS NUTS

Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
logically impossible.

The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
H reports that The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30185&group=comp.theory#30185

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:59:07 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 10:59:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
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>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_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>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 84
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ECRVkwdsM0mkYJwcUsAIngwsme27xMDb+Ge+h/y6JyoPKhmZYQkN+e/hFqGpPEqlv2lINXU/0/lKg1d!5h7LToPf8ML8v7fP9mPFHFVQGfNvfKS9Q6MX6rJANzfwLq0OUX7my/JFn84L/jwCl+uzksrv3xYw
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: 5255
 by: olcott - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:59 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:44 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/12/2022 9:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:47 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:09 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
>>>>>>>>>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that
>>>>>>>>>> they are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for
>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's good because you have been 100% clear about H. It's wrong
>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts (according to you) and H(P,P) == false (according to
>>>>>>>>> you).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you insist that a halt decider must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>> non-inputs: P(P) when you know that it only computes the mapping from
>>>>>>>> inputs H(P,P) ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't. H takes arguments (what you insist on calling inputs) and maps
>>>>>>> them to a result. The correct result is defined by people who know what
>>>>>>> the halting problem is -- you don't get to decide. You may never
>>>>>>> understand the specification, but you only need to know one fact about
>>>>>>> it: mapping the "inputs" P and P to false is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that mere opinions carry more weight
>>>>>> than the following verified fact:
>>>>>
>>>>> The facts that (a) H(P,P) == false and (b) P(P) halts are not in dispute
>>>>> (so far as I know). That H mapping P and P to false is wrong is a
>>>>> matter of definition. There are no opinions being expressed here at
>>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> So you agree that an input that never halts is a halting computation.
>>> Don't be silly. As the culmination of 17 years of work, this looks
>>> pathetic. Either retract one of your previously asserted facts (that
>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) == false) or say that your H is not deciding
>>> halting, but something else.
>>>
>>
>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>
> You don't know what a proof is, remember? You still think that if
> {A,B,C} ⊦ X then {A,B,C,~X} ⊬ X.
>
>> (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)
>
> No.
>
>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>
> No.
>
>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR
>> Y.
>
> Both. I give more detail (if you are interested) in another reply.
>

Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
logically impossible.

The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
H reports that The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30186&group=comp.theory#30186

 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:37:49 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <87wnfsvkoi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmhyaun.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<wrCdnb3uw-Cnp8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h76xvvor.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnV5Bfvy3bsv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8ce83df1a65fb778a5838b266a1c132c";
logging-data="11403"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/mqwQrrPsbtwLhlKmgVKtbelW6/vXJd/Q="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MMadwJkMRaeVOmr7xZXkN/xSqUc=
sha1:AgStknCsqltQYGaXqMWrtU2c6bY=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.f06d547f7baaf8a9d76e.20220413203749BST.87wnfsvkoi.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:37 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/13/2022 10:40 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>
>>> I never bring this up because it always causes a short-circuit in your
>>> brain: The execution of P(P) is not computationally equivalent to the
>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>
>> They are computationally equivalent in some ways and not in others. In
>> the way that matters -- the halting status -- they are.
>
> So you are saying

WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! ***nonsense alert***

> that two distinctly different computations must have the same halting
> behavior. THAT IS NUTS

Yes, that is nuts. Who would ever say such a thing?

> Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
> logically impossible.

Can we all play? Can I say that you are wrong by logical necessity?

> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.

Then you are doing it wrong, or you lied when you said that P(P) halts.

> H reports that The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.

It's possible that the junk phrase "the simulated input to H(P,P) is non
halting" carries some secret meaning, or you will suddenly give it some
secret meaning when you get tired of being right by logical necessity.
It's literal nonsense so there is lots of scope for that.

Why are we having the same conversation twice? Do you prefer it that
way?

--
Ben.

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

<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30187&group=comp.theory#30187

 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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:38:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8ce83df1a65fb778a5838b266a1c132c";
logging-data="11403"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SmwYzqBV6d+f9hRAkktODaNqOssVU8JY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u5BwVHNmQ4RfCjUvpvRIYRAKGVI=
sha1:LvJ/MAzrKVZeyCaV/6Jei8dTo4U=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.00c4271d855dabc1b00b.20220413203800BST.87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:38 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/13/2022 10:44 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2022 9:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:47 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:09 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
>>>>>>>>>>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that
>>>>>>>>>>> they are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for
>>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's good because you have been 100% clear about H. It's wrong
>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts (according to you) and H(P,P) == false (according to
>>>>>>>>>> you).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you insist that a halt decider must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>> non-inputs: P(P) when you know that it only computes the mapping from
>>>>>>>>> inputs H(P,P) ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't. H takes arguments (what you insist on calling inputs) and maps
>>>>>>>> them to a result. The correct result is defined by people who know what
>>>>>>>> the halting problem is -- you don't get to decide. You may never
>>>>>>>> understand the specification, but you only need to know one fact about
>>>>>>>> it: mapping the "inputs" P and P to false is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that mere opinions carry more weight
>>>>>>> than the following verified fact:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The facts that (a) H(P,P) == false and (b) P(P) halts are not in dispute
>>>>>> (so far as I know). That H mapping P and P to false is wrong is a
>>>>>> matter of definition. There are no opinions being expressed here at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you agree that an input that never halts is a halting computation.
>>>> Don't be silly. As the culmination of 17 years of work, this looks
>>>> pathetic. Either retract one of your previously asserted facts (that
>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) == false) or say that your H is not deciding
>>>> halting, but something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>> You don't know what a proof is, remember? You still think that if
>> {A,B,C} ⊦ X then {A,B,C,~X} ⊬ X.
>>
>>> (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)
>> No.
>>
>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>> No.
>>
>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR
>>> Y.
>> Both. I give more detail (if you are interested) in another reply.
>>
>
> Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
> logically impossible.

Why are you posting then? Time to publish your halt decider H that has
H(P,P) == false and P(P) halting. Try the JACM. Make sure you put
those undisputed facts at the top of the abstract.

> 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.

> H reports that The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.

--
Ben.

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

<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30188&group=comp.theory#30188

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:15:10 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 15:15:09 -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>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_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>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 118
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-aYJlegtv3rFH6c03lon7qYDd9aPi+BHIX50HGU/a7IKzJWsa+tplXFpxyVEMmY9bKkRnvKsddvt9F5R!z8jTJqqpetKcJgr2vPPqgkMA5MFogGudDsLXrsvglaZZ484LBR3kff4Saa2tbX8MEqhWYCdiCj3T
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: 6968
 by: olcott - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:15 UTC

On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/13/2022 10:44 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:47 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:09 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for
>>>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's good because you have been 100% clear about H. It's wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts (according to you) and H(P,P) == false (according to
>>>>>>>>>>> you).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you insist that a halt decider must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>> non-inputs: P(P) when you know that it only computes the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>> inputs H(P,P) ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't. H takes arguments (what you insist on calling inputs) and maps
>>>>>>>>> them to a result. The correct result is defined by people who know what
>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is -- you don't get to decide. You may never
>>>>>>>>> understand the specification, but you only need to know one fact about
>>>>>>>>> it: mapping the "inputs" P and P to false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that mere opinions carry more weight
>>>>>>>> than the following verified fact:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The facts that (a) H(P,P) == false and (b) P(P) halts are not in dispute
>>>>>>> (so far as I know). That H mapping P and P to false is wrong is a
>>>>>>> matter of definition. There are no opinions being expressed here at
>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree that an input that never halts is a halting computation.
>>>>> Don't be silly. As the culmination of 17 years of work, this looks
>>>>> pathetic. Either retract one of your previously asserted facts (that
>>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) == false) or say that your H is not deciding
>>>>> halting, but something else.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>> You don't know what a proof is, remember? You still think that if
>>> {A,B,C} ⊦ X then {A,B,C,~X} ⊬ X.
>>>
>>>> (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)
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR
>>>> Y.
>>> Both. I give more detail (if you are interested) in another reply.
>>>
>>
>> Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
>> logically impossible.
>
> Why are you posting then? Time to publish your halt decider H that has
> H(P,P) == false and P(P) halting. Try the JACM. Make sure you put
> those undisputed facts at the top of the abstract.
>
>> 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:
(perhaps you don't have the slightest clue how the x86 language works)

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]

--
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)

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30190&group=comp.theory#30190

 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 00:02:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d24b48f9c0b0cf8c127841564518bd44";
logging-data="19853"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jzvYKArO+Y7QZSQAK1zmt2wNrPd2L33c="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vLJJQ5Mzi9ZnhUAf5XQyJa0KMDw=
sha1:FDimnnfv4K8e0YdiM1NtHMiunNU=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.705e9241ca58b5db5a72.20220414000205BST.87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:02 UTC

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.

--
Ben.

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

<LMI5K.39315$I_.10575@fx44.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30191&group=comp.theory#30191

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder5.feed.usenet.farm!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!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!fx44.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>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_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>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <LMI5K.39315$I_.10575@fx44.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 19:11:40 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5469
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:11 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:44 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2022 9:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:47 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:09 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone
>>>>>>>>>>> imagines that it
>>>>>>>>>>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>> proves that
>>>>>>>>>>> they are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero
>>>>>>>>>>> room for
>>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's good because you have been 100% clear about H.  It's wrong
>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts (according to you) and H(P,P) == false
>>>>>>>>>> (according to
>>>>>>>>>> you).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you insist that a halt decider must compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> non-inputs: P(P) when you know that it only computes the
>>>>>>>>> mapping from
>>>>>>>>> inputs H(P,P) ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't.  H takes arguments (what you insist on calling inputs)
>>>>>>>> and maps
>>>>>>>> them to a result.  The correct result is defined by people who
>>>>>>>> know what
>>>>>>>> the halting problem is -- you don't get to decide.  You may never
>>>>>>>> understand the specification, but you only need to know one fact
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> it: mapping the "inputs" P and P to false is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that mere opinions carry more
>>>>>>> weight
>>>>>>> than the following verified fact:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The facts that (a) H(P,P) == false and (b) P(P) halts are not in
>>>>>> dispute
>>>>>> (so far as I know).  That H mapping P and P to false is wrong is a
>>>>>> matter of definition.  There are no opinions being expressed here at
>>>>>> all.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you agree that an input that never halts is a halting computation.
>>>> Don't be silly.  As the culmination of 17 years of work, this looks
>>>> pathetic.  Either retract one of your previously asserted facts (that
>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) == false) or say that your H is not deciding
>>>> halting, but something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>
>> You don't know what a proof is, remember?  You still think that if
>> {A,B,C} ⊦ X then {A,B,C,~X} ⊬ X.
>>
>>> (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)
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR
>>> Y.
>>
>> Both.  I give more detail (if you are interested) in another reply.
>>
>
> Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
> logically impossible.

No, it is FALSE by logical necessity, and you seem to have a problem
about distinguishing Truth from Error.

Maybe if you took a basic course in logic you might be able to
understand this.

>
> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
> H reports that The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>
>

No, the correct simulation of the input is Halting if H rejects the
input, thus H is WRONG.

FAIL

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

<uOI5K.39316$I_.23889@fx44.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30192&group=comp.theory#30192

 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!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx44.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>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_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>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <uOI5K.39316$I_.23889@fx44.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 19:13:31 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7291
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:13 UTC

On 4/13/22 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/13/2022 10:44 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:47 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:09 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagines that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero
>>>>>>>>>>>>> room for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's good because you have been 100% clear about H.  It's
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>> because P(P) halts (according to you) and H(P,P) == false
>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to
>>>>>>>>>>>> you).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you insist that a halt decider must compute the
>>>>>>>>>>> mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>> non-inputs: P(P) when you know that it only computes the
>>>>>>>>>>> mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>> inputs H(P,P) ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't.  H takes arguments (what you insist on calling
>>>>>>>>>> inputs) and maps
>>>>>>>>>> them to a result.  The correct result is defined by people who
>>>>>>>>>> know what
>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is -- you don't get to decide.  You may never
>>>>>>>>>> understand the specification, but you only need to know one
>>>>>>>>>> fact about
>>>>>>>>>> it: mapping the "inputs" P and P to false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that mere opinions carry more
>>>>>>>>> weight
>>>>>>>>> than the following verified fact:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The facts that (a) H(P,P) == false and (b) P(P) halts are not in
>>>>>>>> dispute
>>>>>>>> (so far as I know).  That H mapping P and P to false is wrong is a
>>>>>>>> matter of definition.  There are no opinions being expressed
>>>>>>>> here at
>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you agree that an input that never halts is a halting
>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>> Don't be silly.  As the culmination of 17 years of work, this looks
>>>>>> pathetic.  Either retract one of your previously asserted facts (that
>>>>>> P(P) halts or that H(P,P) == false) or say that your H is not
>>>>>> deciding
>>>>>> halting, but something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>> You don't know what a proof is, remember?  You still think that if
>>>> {A,B,C} ⊦ X then {A,B,C,~X} ⊬ X.
>>>>
>>>>> (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)
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR
>>>>> Y.
>>>> Both.  I give more detail (if you are interested) in another reply.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
>>> logically impossible.
>>
>> Why are you posting then?  Time to publish your halt decider H that has
>> H(P,P) == false and P(P) halting.  Try the JACM.  Make sure you put
>> those undisputed facts at the top of the abstract.
>>
>>> 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:
> (perhaps you don't have the slightest clue how the x86 language works)
>
> 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

Can't, because a correct simulation never 'aborts' (unless the Machine
it is simulation 'blows up')

This PROVES that you simulation is not a correct simulation.

FAIL.

>
>
> [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]
>
>
>

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

<VQI5K.39317$I_.10990@fx44.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30193&group=comp.theory#30193

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx44.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>
<RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.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>
<asOdnYtjV4Khe8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <asOdnYtjV4Khe8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 258
Message-ID: <VQI5K.39317$I_.10990@fx44.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 19:16:05 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 13676
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:16 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:03 AM, 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.
>>
>> 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,
>
> Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
> logically impossible.


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)

<gTI5K.39318$I_.5653@fx44.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30194&group=comp.theory#30194

 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!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx44.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>
<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>
<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmhyaun.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <wrCdnb3uw-Cnp8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h76xvvor.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnV5Bfvy3bsv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <9-mdnV5Bfvy3bsv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <gTI5K.39318$I_.5653@fx44.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 19:18:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2944
X-Original-Bytes: 2811
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:18 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:40 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>
>>> I never bring this up because it always causes a short-circuit in your
>>> brain: The execution of P(P) is not computationally equivalent to the
>>> correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).
>>
>> They are computationally equivalent in some ways and not in others.  In
>> the way that matters -- the halting status -- they are.
>>
>
> So you are saying that two distinctly different computations must have
> the same halting behavior. THAT IS NUTS
>
> Since what I said is true by logical necessity correct rebuttals are
> logically impossible.
>
> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
> H reports that The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>
>
>

BY DEFINITION, the correct simulation of an input that represents a
machine, but simulate the exact set of states that the machine itself
generates.

Thus the Halting of P(P) and the correct simulation of P,P must agree.

If they don't, that is jst PROOF the simulation is not correct.

That you don't understand this, just proves your ignorance.

FAIL.

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

<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30195&group=comp.theory#30195

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:37:04 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:37:03 -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: <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 52
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-z4ynKvvVkSckqsv1xS9qGV54J6xA8NEm3cJ72iY5dPSXpSvloNRwQ/uJKLH7xswcecTn4qxvMpKv6G5!0/eS1S9amGKrTRVzNvlcJILye+0v3//dBiG7Kqe1x+fYq0iRBE0VROJ8rYXLQR1nGCuHfNfi/uwP
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: 3962
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 00:37 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.
>

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]

--
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)

<t37s8o$1qrg$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30196&group=comp.theory#30196

 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 ] H(P,P)
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:10:04 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t37s8o$1qrg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="60272"; 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: fr
 by: Python - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:10 UTC

Pathetic Crank Peter 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.
>>
>
> 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]

Idiot Olcott, could you please use, sometime, use 68k assembly instead
of x86 in order to miss the point? You are boring.

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

<0YidnW80Src66cr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30197&group=comp.theory#30197

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:11:03 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:11:03 -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> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t37s8o$1qrg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t37s8o$1qrg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0YidnW80Src66cr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wIEufvplzChQt6lvzFkoMmoajcAdgfKTBDRAiD9UX7Gl6Yp66vYFYFXMp4F+NjbWKRisglBGurXjWXz!ZZkiMZXjHK6YYygh2GWLRGToGjNXQWcCc6unvVEaUJLSgOVhcCyBKcTpf+XnjwfmaCWVsICqoZgY
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4681
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:11 UTC

On 4/13/2022 8:10 PM, Python wrote:
> Pathetic Crank Peter 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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]
>
> Idiot Olcott, could you please use, sometime, use 68k assembly instead
> of x86 in order to miss the point? You are boring.
>
>

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.

--
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)

<iGK5K.33581$r_.5027@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30198&group=comp.theory#30198

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.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> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <iGK5K.33581$r_.5027@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:21:18 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4631
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:21 UTC

On 4/13/22 8:37 PM, 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.
>>
>
> 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.

Except for that the input to H is actually HALTING if H does what you
say, so your logic is flawed, because you use the wrong definition of
Halting and correct simulation.

>
> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.

Except it DOES when you look at the CORRECT simulation, at least if H
does what you say.

H can't see that, but that is because H aborts its simulation too soon
(in part because it doesn't have a choice).

>
> _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

Except that proves this isn't a correct simulation, since a correct
simulation doesn't 'abort'

Thus, your proof has incorrect.
>
>
> [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]
>
>

So since H does abort the simulation and say non-halting, the CORRECT
simulation of the input will see the copy of H used by P aborting its
simulation and returning to P and then P halting.

FAIL.

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

<sHK5K.33582$r_.26373@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30199&group=comp.theory#30199

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.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> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t37s8o$1qrg$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<0YidnW80Src66cr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <0YidnW80Src66cr_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <sHK5K.33582$r_.26373@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:22:33 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4576
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:22 UTC

On 4/13/22 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 8:10 PM, Python wrote:
>> Pathetic Crank Peter 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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]
>>
>> Idiot Olcott, could you please use, sometime, use 68k assembly instead
>> of x86 in order to miss the point? You are boring.
>>
>>
>
> 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.
>

Except as explained previously, the CORRECT simulation halts, and no
amount of INCORRECT simulation can prove otherwise.

LIAR.

FAIL.

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor