André Isaak, Ben Bacarisse, Mike Terry, Dennis Bush, Richard Damon all
take the position against this tautology:

They all take the position that the fact that the input to H(P,P) is
non-halting is not an entirely sufficient reason for H to report that
its input is non-halting.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 4/16/2022 8:59 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:31:29 UTC+1, B.H. wrote:
>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>
>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that idiot is dying at an
>>> accelerated rate. He is a troll who lies about everything if it will
>> You think there is no such thing as cancer?
>>> drag a dialogue partner along. But I do believe that he is dying of
>>> laughter at all the nonsense threads he can generate and support. It
>> What's wrong with that, why is that a rule, and even if it is a rule, why is
>> it so irritating to you? You would likely be able to generate more threads
>> if you didn't look like a cantakerous jerk, although maybe you would prefer
>> to do it your way. Your way of acting and presenting yourself, regardless
>> of what you think inwardly in your mind and don't say, isn't up to me, it is
>> your choice.
>>> sure doesn't mean his brain is actually working; it probably isn't and
>>> he is auto deluded or it is and he is an utter fool.
>> His brain sounds fine to me.
>>
> I don't think PO is trolling. He's too persistent for that. And sometimes he
> makes errors that that make him look foolish, such as saying that a Turing
> machine needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 steps. That goes against
> trollish psychology.
>

My big issue with Turing machines is that none of them can move the tape
head more than one position at a time. This makes them intolerably
tedious for expressing any significant algorithm.

> Also, he accepts that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) returns "non-halting". As Ben
> says, that's a tough hill to fight on, and the most straightforwards explanation
> is that he is telling the truth.
>

THE STUPID AND OR DISHONEST MISTAKE OF MY REVIEWERS
All of my reviewers take the position that the fact that the input to
H(P,P) is non-halting is not an entirely sufficient reason for H to
report that its input is non-halting.

(1) It is a fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting on the basis
that its correct simulation never reaches its own final state, whether
or not this simulation if ever aborted.

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]

(2) It is a fact that P(P) halts.

(3) It is a fact that P(P) and the simulated input to H(P,P) are
computationally distinct thus can have different halting behavior.

P(P,P) is the first invocation of otherwise infinite recursion that is
terminated on its second invocation. It is always the case that whenever
infinite recursion is terminated on its second invocation that the first
invocation will halt.

> I think he believes he has seen something that no-one else has, and that he
> can't communicate that to other people here. And I think I know what it is -
> essentially his "simulating halt decider" can't get the right answer, for a
> reason that isn't directly related to the so-called "Linz proof". The "infinite
> nesting detector" must always detect infinite nesting one step before the
> simulator it is simulating does the same.

The outermost SHD sees the infinite behavior first and must abort its
simulation when it sees it or no SHD will ever abort their simulation,
because each one will wait for the next one to do it.

> He reasons that therefore the
> "simulating halt decider" is making the right call instead of the wrong call,
> by a step I can't quite follow.
>
> However to explain this to him i too difficult. Some other posters get it.

THIS IS THE KEY STUPID AND OR DISHONEST MISTAKE OF MY REVIEWERS
All of my reviewers take the position that the fact that the input to
H(P,P) is non-halting is not an entirely sufficient reason for H to
report that its input is non-halting.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 4/16/2022 10:35 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:42:22 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 8:59 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:31:29 UTC+1, B.H. wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that idiot is dying at an
>>>>> accelerated rate. He is a troll who lies about everything if it will
>>>> You think there is no such thing as cancer?
>>>>> drag a dialogue partner along. But I do believe that he is dying of
>>>>> laughter at all the nonsense threads he can generate and support. It
>>>> What's wrong with that, why is that a rule, and even if it is a rule, why is
>>>> it so irritating to you? You would likely be able to generate more threads
>>>> if you didn't look like a cantakerous jerk, although maybe you would prefer
>>>> to do it your way. Your way of acting and presenting yourself, regardless
>>>> of what you think inwardly in your mind and don't say, isn't up to me, it is
>>>> your choice.
>>>>> sure doesn't mean his brain is actually working; it probably isn't and
>>>>> he is auto deluded or it is and he is an utter fool.
>>>> His brain sounds fine to me.
>>>>
>>> I don't think PO is trolling. He's too persistent for that. And sometimes he
>>> makes errors that that make him look foolish, such as saying that a Turing
>>> machine needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 steps. That goes against
>>> trollish psychology.
>>>
>> My big issue with Turing machines is that none of them can move the tape
>> head more than one position at a time. This makes them intolerably
>> tedious for expressing any significant algorithm.
>>
> You should try to write a few Turing machines, however. An "even/odd" decider
> shouldn't be too tedious to write. It's hard to present youself as an expert on
> Turing machines if you've never constructed one.

People that are honest can see that the meaning of my words proves that
I am correct. If they are not paying enough attention to the meaning of
my words because they do not believe that I have credibility this too is
dishonesty on their part.

The even odd decider would require me to carefully study this 15 pages
of text: http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt

Everyone already knows that I can write this because I have specified
its correct design. Traverse the finite string of binary digits until
space. Backup one position. If tape location == 0 then even else odd.

> Even a UTM, though not a trivial machine, isn't all that complicated. Penrose
> writes one out in his book "The Emperor's New Mind". I think it occupies
> about half a page, though expressed very compactly in a binary notation.
>
> But you should write a few simpler machines before considering UTMs, much
> less a modified UTM.

THIS IS THE KEY POINT WHERE ALL OF MY REVIEWERS (besides you) LIE

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

That is 100% perfectly moot.
The following conclusively proves that I am correct.
I only need the God damned liars to quit their God damned lying.

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

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

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

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

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

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

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

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

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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