Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray


devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

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 ][ back door ]

<b6mdnUAvTaoyG8T_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30292&group=comp.theory#30292

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 09:52:31 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 09:52:29 -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>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me> <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <b6mdnUAvTaoyG8T_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 56
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-9EXYW1rpR8JccWPBa+PdNm6eYOKLb52pNOVXXTRGLpR/YS55ZPp/Sj/b1wcSpGNbIXYAI6uSlfmSH3u!O2bA1nBoWyH8dyW8YTt6yd/5QJVppmK2/qlxDyHpsrYWUvAUBB9eJZ1ZdLnUNmZxNfmqqvJowULG
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: 5018
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 14:52 UTC

On 4/15/2022 7:34 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 21:42:05 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>
>>> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
>>> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
>>> subjunctive mood?
>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future behavior of
>> of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and believe that
>> an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.
>>
>> To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say that
>> the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that
>> it is non-halting.
>>
> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
> However it is wrong to do so, because the simulator it is simultating has
> the same logic, and will make the same decision if it is allowed to run
> for longer.

No, this is false. In any case the first simulator to see the infinite
behavior is the outer-most one and it aborts all the rest.

> In the game pass the parcel, the children pass the parcel until the music
> stops. What happens if we put the music on an endless loop?
> Of course what happens is that eventually one child decides that this
> will go on forever if he doesn't stop, and he aborts the game somehow,
> for example by opening the parcel anyway. So, naively, you could say
> "the game would have gone forever had that child not put a stop to it".
> But in fact all the children have some tolerance level. No game of pass
> the parcel will go on forever. Eventually even the most patient child will
> decide he cannot continue to pass the parcel.

That the correctly simulated input never reaches it own final state
whether or not it is ever aborted proves that it is non-halting.

> Now in your system, if one of the simulations didn't abort, then the
> abort would be correct. But all the simulations run the same simulator.
> If the simulators don't abort, then that is incorrect, becaue now they
> really do run forever. There's no correct behaviour. Just we can't all
> tell our children "never be the first to give up, because someone else
> will always give up before you". That might be sound advice to a
> subset of children, but not to all the children in the group.

--
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) [ Why lie ? ]

<mbSdnVeuLuB0FcT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30293&group=comp.theory#30293

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:02:01 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:02:00 -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) [
Why lie ? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vcidnT01o4J7IsX_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmer2y3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87fsmer2y3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <mbSdnVeuLuB0FcT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 200
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0HBTrdQ5wZPxG69OIRBJTiUDPRt/qg7ojQFCZPT9g8vpufJ6fLiLXyT+MpR45EgXVNwTNCstoFOEpxB!Tt1HJDpZKZOaPhaf1Rr5tXUbJvun38RJ/TUd1rL/d/AqZAxVwN8BaRxx0txQ2Z6toli5c3zcWkNB
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: 10579
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:02 UTC

On 4/15/2022 6:39 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2022 3:54 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 11:40 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You
>>>>>>>>>>> need to try a new ruse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two
>>>>>>>>> pointers. They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they are just
>>>>>>>>> pointers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Up until, now I was prepared to take your words metaphorically, but
>>>>>>>>> since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>> non-halting" means,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure when I make to to explain ever details many hundreds of times
>>>>>>>> damned liars will say that I never mentioned any of this.
>>>>>>> Just use the right terms. H(P,P) has not input. The call has
>>>>>>> arguments. They are just pointers. Pointers are not halting nor are
>>>>>>> they non halting. Given that this mantra is the core of what you are
>>>>>>> now claiming, I would have thought you would want to avoid it being
>>>>>>> patentent nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to H is the only way that finite strings can be passed to a
>>>>>>>> "C" function and points to the finite string of the machine code of P.
>>>>>>> H has no input. Do you mean the two pointer arguments?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulating halt decider H uses an x86 emulator to simulate its
>>>>>>>> input (P,P) and finds that it would never reach its own final state in
>>>>>>>> an unlimited number of simulated steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (P,P) is too vague. What needs to be simulated is the first pointer
>>>>>>> being called as a function with the second as it's argument. I.e. the
>>>>>>> call P(P) is what should be simulated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>> own final state proves that this input is not-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding all of the tedious details that you suggest does not change
>>>>>> this fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you add all the corrections, sorry, "tedious details", it contradicts
>>>>> what you've said in the past. With the errors left in place, the naive
>>>>> reader won't knowing exactly what's being said -- and I think that's
>>>>> deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, why talk about simulation at all since simulations of
>>>>> computations halt or don't halt if and only if the computations do
>>>>> themselves? Well, it adds yet another puff of smoke to the mirrors
>>>>> you've got in there already like what that "its" refers to (since
>>>>> nothing here has a final state), or what non-halting pointers are.
>>>>> "The input to H(P,P)" should mean the two pointers, P and P. Simulating
>>>>> them should mean simulating the call P(P) and the simulation "not
>>>>> reaching its own final state" should mean that the simulation of P(P)
>>>>> does not halt. And that happens if, and only if, the call P(P) itself
>>>>> does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> I honestly have no idea if that is what you mean, but if it is, it's
>>>>> wrong because P(P) halts. You are probably just trying to cover that
>>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>
>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>> you call a non input:
>>
>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>
> If this is one of the things you might say to that fictional room of
> academics you imagine talking to, put me down for a front row seat!
>
>> You know damn well that a halt decider must compute the mapping
>> FROM ITS INPUTS
>
> From its arguments.
>
>> Any damn thing that computes the mapping from a non-input
>> IS WRONG BY DEFINITION
>
> I tried to help you with this, but you

Just won't believe damn lies

> got stuck at the very start.
>
> Anyway, you don't get to say what the correct answer is.

Computer science says that any input to a halt decider that would never
reach its own final state is non-halting.

> You started
> this massive waste of time by deciding, decades ago, to take up an
> /existing/ problem. What your H has to return, for any given arguments,
> is not up for debate. You can say you can't meet the specification
> because it's in some way crazy -- that /is/ up to you (though you won't
> find many takers) -- but you still can't meet the specification:
>
> // H returns true if, and only if, the function call x(y) always
> // returns (or halts if you prefer) no matter where it is called from.
> // H returns false in all other cases.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int H(ptr x, ptr y);
>
> Stamp your feet and shout that x(y) is a "non-input" all you like, but
> this is the function you can't write[1].
>
> Actually you can't write a function like that which decides /any/
> non-trivial property of the function x. Can you write a function that
> decides if there is some y for which x(y) == 42? No you can't. Can you
> write a function that decides if x(0) == 0? No you can't.
>
> And the list includes many practical and interesting problems such as
> deciding if a context-free grammar is ambiguous or not.
>
>> IS WRONG BY DEFINITION
>> IS WRONG BY DEFINITION
>>
>> Why lie ?
>
> How often have you got burned by this?

I am not burned now.
When I state a logical truism and anyone disagrees then they are incorrect.

> I have never lied to you but
> many times when you have accused me of lying, or playing head games, or,
> on one occasion, of being mad, it's turned out that you just didn't know
> what you were talking about. The last time was fixed only after I told
> you, repeatedly, to read page 8 of Mendelson. On that occasion, you
> didn't know what a sequence was just a function.
>
> [1] Without tricks like H(x,y) returning different results when called
> in different places in a program.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30294&group=comp.theory#30294

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:05:55 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:05:53 -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) [
liar by definition ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 71
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-A373UEy5FTWXp8GavcHwzNtB2ufwxUdEW+hUx+aUqaIHogSNgCJIIOtCNxXohACGXxsHd6T2Z6Vt3hV!Hrvf0SUshYNGnJ9SxsWjl9q1L/wVQE4jYFBnWIuMpEJgqmFQ1F1I1OMC8fgDCvqtASBpW1f5nzDD
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: 4465
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:05 UTC

On 4/15/2022 6:48 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>
>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>> you call a non input:
>>
>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>
> No. The correct value of H(P,P) is not for you to choose.
>

I have proven that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts
therefore H would be necessarily correct to report this?

>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>
>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>
> As long as it's correctly stated, I would agree with it.
>

The machine code proves that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
never halts. Perhaps you are clueless about machine code?

If you are clueless about machine code then it is dishonest to form any
rebuttal.

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]

>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30295&group=comp.theory#30295

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:09:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IEf6K.167451$8V_7.91526@fx04.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f8b67a7155e27a25649c34539ea91f50";
logging-data="26712"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kLjFBKSjgnsdmbg4i2Sal+gTv/RJzA+M="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H3SIVIA9CPasKgOyKGeg7c5rQCw=
sha1:6NEmh2LDm265gyIhPN6E/0p9q8s=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.2872c8d948842884ba60.20220415160902BST.87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:09 UTC

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 4/15/22 10:36 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 21:42:05 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>>>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
>>>>> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
>>>>> subjunctive mood?
>>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future behavior of
>>>> of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and believe that
>>>> an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.
>>>>
>>>> To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say that
>>>> the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that
>>>> it is non-halting.
>>>>
>>> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
>>> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
>>> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
>> I'd prefer it if you said partial simulator. I've urged PO not to
>> bother saying correct simulation, but he'll have to if you use the naked
>> term for something that is not a correct simulator.
>> Also, one way or another, the top-level simulation must stop (regardless
>> of what's being simulated) or it can't be used as a decider.
>
> And if the top-level simulation stops, then so must the identical copy
> processing the identical input that it is simulating.
>
> Some how PO seems to think that this isn't actually so, an idea that
> if true would wipe out all of Computer Science.

Sure. Unfortunately for PO he knows can make H and the copy behave
differently because he can only image C code (or C++) code which has
access to the stack (and/or other global data). Not that he's doing
that trick. If he were, surely he'd make H return the right result
rather than the wrong one?

And of course the nested simulations /can/ all behave differently,
though this adds nothing of interest. H and it's copy in Ĥ must behave
identically, but once either starts it's partial (or more likely stepped
until stopped) simulation it can keep track of the nesting level.

--
Ben.

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

<QaSdnd4WBrN7F8T_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30296&group=comp.theory#30296

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:10:30 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:10:28 -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>
<74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <QaSdnd4WBrN7F8T_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-I4MqzvDv+x3bk+Q43RGF0sbx+YSXn6sIFhYvEoRb5jV2Y1FrVLyYdQEoFmNLHIaPyNz4HYaUDbjrVVj!8Dv68jzMtW5UpUCMZ1zGnSQ2M9IaL3vgPyv08G1lHPJGtCv7xeSx7QGpjV8fgRsT2ayRMIgsRuq2
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: 4118
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:10 UTC

On 4/15/2022 9:36 AM, Ben wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 21:42:05 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
>>>> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
>>>> subjunctive mood?
>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future behavior of
>>> of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and believe that
>>> an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.
>>>
>>> To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say that
>>> the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that
>>> it is non-halting.
>>>
>> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
>> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
>> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
>
> I'd prefer it if you said partial simulator. I've urged PO not to
> bother saying correct simulation, but he'll have to if you use the naked
> term for something that is not a correct simulator.
>
> Also, one way or another, the top-level simulation must stop (regardless
> of what's being simulated) or it can't be used as a decider.
>

So you acknowledge that the simulated input never halts (reaches its own
final state) and yet still disagree that H is correct to report this.

If I have a cow, and call it a cow I am correct by tautology.

If H has a non-halting input and calls it a non-halting then H is
correct by tautology.

I don't see why you deceitfully continue to deny this.

--
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 ]

<QWf6K.241894$41E7.126134@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30297&group=comp.theory#30297

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me> <V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<b6mdnUAvTaoyG8T_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <b6mdnUAvTaoyG8T_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <QWf6K.241894$41E7.126134@fx37.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:11:43 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6869
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:11 UTC

On 4/15/22 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 7:34 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 21:42:05 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
>>>> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
>>>> subjunctive mood?
>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future behavior of
>>> of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and believe that
>>> an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.
>>>
>>> To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say that
>>> the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that
>>> it is non-halting.
>>>
>> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
>> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
>> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
>> However it is wrong to do so, because the simulator it is simultating has
>> the same logic, and will make the same decision if it is allowed to run
>> for longer.
>
> No, this is false. In any case the first simulator to see the infinite
> behavior is the outer-most one and it aborts all the rest.

Except that if the first simulator makes that decision, then so would
the second in line, so an actual pure simulation of the input to the
first sees that second one making that decision and it aborting and
halting. This makes the first decider wrong.

A key thing you miss is that a decider needs to be built on an actual
detailed algorithm describing exactly how it works. This algorithm can
only work off of what the decider can actually see happen, and anyting
like 'would have' needs to be converted to some actual rules defined to
predict.

Since your decider, to make this prediction, makes assumptions about the
behavior of the copy of itself in the simulation, if it doesn't behave
that way, it has used unsound logic. Your prediction that the simulation
would go on forever is based on the assumption that the decider will
never abort its simulation, so when it does, it is proven to be using
unsound logic.

>
>> In  the game pass the parcel, the children pass the parcel until the
>> music
>> stops. What happens if we put the music on an endless loop?
>> Of course what happens is that eventually one child decides that this
>> will go on forever if he doesn't stop, and he aborts the game somehow,
>> for example by opening the parcel anyway. So, naively, you could say
>> "the game would have gone forever had that child not put a stop to it".
>> But in fact all the children have some tolerance level. No game of pass
>> the parcel will go on forever. Eventually even the most patient child
>> will
>> decide he cannot continue to pass the parcel.
>
> That the correctly simulated input never reaches it own final state
> whether or not it is ever aborted proves that it is non-halting.

You have to define your decider first.

If it doesn't abort this simulation, then it fails because it doesn't
answer, as the input built on this decider is non-halting.

If it does abort this simulation, then the input for THIS decider also
has a copy of it that when we do an actual CORRECT simulation of the
input sees that copy make this same decision and abort its simulation
and return to the machine it was in and that halts. Thus the decider is
proved wrong.

The problem is you are now talking about the behavior of two different
inputs. since you have two different deciders, the one that doesn't
abort, and the one that does. These have different behaviors, so both
deciders are wrong.

You are making the unfounded assumption that there is a correct behavior
for a decider being put into this situation, which due to the
recursiveness of the problem just doesn't exist.

For each input there IS a 'Correct Answer' for the problem, it just is a
fact that your decider never gives it.

Your mind is just too small to take in the full concept of the problem,
and thus can't understand it.

YOU HAVE FAILED.

>
>> Now in your system, if one of the simulations didn't abort, then the
>> abort would be correct. But all the simulations run the same simulator.
>> If the simulators don't abort, then that is incorrect, becaue now they
>> really do run forever. There's no correct behaviour. Just we can't all
>> tell our children "never be the first to give up, because someone else
>> will always give up before you". That might be sound advice to a
>> subset of children, but not to all the children in the group.
>
>

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

<QaSdndkWBrNIFsT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30298&group=comp.theory#30298

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:14:29 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 10:14:28 -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>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IEf6K.167451$8V_7.91526@fx04.iad>
<87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <QaSdndkWBrNIFsT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 69
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-7iOvT1W7recNRVe0RQNm+F/iiqh0TabpARBkyaX0s+tS7G9EuK80gyUS1s2Xr8lOp3Rk0iYRwwZqI48!6daHxlmyV7SZ9RW7ueEFW0+HWhNtsij1SpsQLfoDBXH6hnpGV0vDl06STYskikAP45oB65OuTohE
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: 5143
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:14 UTC

On 4/15/2022 10:09 AM, Ben wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 4/15/22 10:36 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 21:42:05 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>>>>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
>>>>>> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
>>>>>> subjunctive mood?
>>>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future behavior of
>>>>> of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and believe that
>>>>> an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.
>>>>>
>>>>> To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say that
>>>>> the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that
>>>>> it is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
>>>> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
>>>> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
>>> I'd prefer it if you said partial simulator. I've urged PO not to
>>> bother saying correct simulation, but he'll have to if you use the naked
>>> term for something that is not a correct simulator.
>>> Also, one way or another, the top-level simulation must stop (regardless
>>> of what's being simulated) or it can't be used as a decider.
>>
>> And if the top-level simulation stops, then so must the identical copy
>> processing the identical input that it is simulating.
>>
>> Some how PO seems to think that this isn't actually so, an idea that
>> if true would wipe out all of Computer Science.
>
> Sure. Unfortunately for PO he knows can make H and the copy behave
> differently because he can only image C code (or C++) code which has
> access to the stack (and/or other global data). Not that he's doing
> that trick. If he were, surely he'd make H return the right result
> rather than the wrong one?
>

If I have a cow, and call it a cow I am correct by tautology.

If H has a non-halting input and calls it a non-halting then H is
correct by tautology.

I don't see why you deceitfully continue to deny this.

You must be an atheist:
Revelation 21:8 KJV ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

> And of course the nested simulations /can/ all behave differently,
> though this adds nothing of interest. H and it's copy in Ĥ must behave
> identically, but once either starts it's partial (or more likely stepped
> until stopped) simulation it can keep track of the nesting level.
>

--
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) [ liar by definition ]

<I%f6K.335152$Lbb6.302236@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30299&group=comp.theory#30299

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx45.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) [
liar by definition ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <I%f6K.335152$Lbb6.302236@fx45.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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:16:56 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5240
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:16 UTC

On 4/15/22 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 6:48 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>>> you call a non input:
>>>
>>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>>
>> No.  The correct value of H(P,P) is not for you to choose.
>>
>
> I have proven that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts
> therefore H would be necessarily correct to report this?

No, you haven't.

You have shown that IF H doesn't abort its simullation, then H(P,P) will
never halt.

Since the condition of the implication is false, you can't deduce the
conclusion.

You fail basic logic.

>
>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>
>>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>>
>> As long as it's correctly stated, I would agree with it.
>>
>
> The machine code proves that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
> never halts. Perhaps you are clueless about machine code?

No, it doesn't

>
> If you are clueless about machine code then it is dishonest to form any
> rebuttal.
>
> 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
Thus this simulation is NOT a correct simulation, since correct
simulation never abort.

This is actually the partial simulation done by H(P,P), which actually
proves that a correct simulation of that input would halt.

>
>
> [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]
>
>
>>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>>> Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
>>
>
>

No, YOU are the liar.

If H(P,P) aborts its simulation and returns non-halting then the CORRECT
simulation of the input to H(P,P) will see the copy of H in P doing that
and sees P(P) Halt, thus H is incorrect.

You are just too dumb to know what you are talking about and proving
yourself to be an ignorant liar.

FAIL

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Why lie ? ]

<%3g6K.744580$oF2.52525@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30301&group=comp.theory#30301

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.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) [
Why lie ? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vcidnT01o4J7IsX_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmer2y3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <mbSdnVeuLuB0FcT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <mbSdnVeuLuB0FcT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 341
Message-ID: <%3g6K.744580$oF2.52525@fx10.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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:21:30 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 16339
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:21 UTC

On 4/15/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 6:39 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/2022 3:54 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 11:40 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have said that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.  Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> license, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating the input means something silly.  It's literal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetoric loses:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not rhetoric.  You've been too clear about this
>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt.  You
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to try a new ruse.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two
>>>>>>>>>> pointers.  They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they
>>>>>>>>>> are just
>>>>>>>>>> pointers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Up until, now I was prepared to take your words
>>>>>>>>>> metaphorically, but
>>>>>>>>>> since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is
>>>>>>>>>> non-halting" means,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure when I make to to explain ever details many hundreds of times
>>>>>>>>> damned liars will say that I never mentioned any of this.
>>>>>>>> Just use the right terms.  H(P,P) has not input.  The call has
>>>>>>>> arguments.  They are just pointers.  Pointers are not halting
>>>>>>>> nor are
>>>>>>>> they non halting.  Given that this mantra is the core of what
>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>> now claiming, I would have thought you would want to avoid it being
>>>>>>>> patentent nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input to H is the only way that finite strings can be
>>>>>>>>> passed to a
>>>>>>>>> "C" function and points to the finite string of the machine
>>>>>>>>> code of P.
>>>>>>>> H has no input.  Do you mean the two pointer arguments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The simulating halt decider H uses an x86 emulator to simulate its
>>>>>>>>> input (P,P) and finds that it would never reach its own final
>>>>>>>>> state in
>>>>>>>>> an unlimited number of simulated steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (P,P) is too vague.  What needs to be simulated is the first
>>>>>>>> pointer
>>>>>>>> being called as a function with the second as it's argument.
>>>>>>>> I.e. the
>>>>>>>> call P(P) is what should be simulated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>> own final state proves that this input is not-halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding all of the tedious details that you suggest does not change
>>>>>>> this fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you add all the corrections, sorry, "tedious details", it
>>>>>> contradicts
>>>>>> what you've said in the past.  With the errors left in place, the
>>>>>> naive
>>>>>> reader won't knowing exactly what's being said -- and I think that's
>>>>>> deliberate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, why talk about simulation at all since simulations of
>>>>>> computations halt or don't halt if and only if the computations do
>>>>>> themselves?  Well, it adds yet another puff of smoke to the mirrors
>>>>>> you've got in there already like what that "its" refers to (since
>>>>>> nothing here has a final state), or what non-halting pointers are.
>>>>>> "The input to H(P,P)" should mean the two pointers, P and P.
>>>>>> Simulating
>>>>>> them should mean simulating the call P(P) and the simulation "not
>>>>>> reaching its own final state" should mean that the simulation of P(P)
>>>>>> does not halt.  And that happens if, and only if, the call P(P)
>>>>>> itself
>>>>>> does not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I honestly have no idea if that is what you mean, but if it is, it's
>>>>>> wrong because P(P) halts.  You are probably just trying to cover that
>>>>>> up.
>>>>>
>>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>>> you call a non input:
>>>
>>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>>
>> If this is one of the things you might say to that fictional room of
>> academics you imagine talking to, put me down for a front row seat!
>>
>>> You know damn well that a halt decider must compute the mapping
>>> FROM ITS INPUTS
>>
>>  From its arguments.
>>
>>> Any damn thing that computes the mapping from a non-input
>>> IS WRONG BY DEFINITION
>>
>> I tried to help you with this, but you
>
> Just won't believe damn lies

You don't believe the truth. FAIL.

>
>> got stuck at the very start.
>>
>> Anyway, you don't get to say what the correct answer is.
>
>
> Computer science says that any input to a halt decider that would never
> reach its own final state is non-halting.

But the input to this halt decider DOES reach its final state when we
look at its ACTUAL behavior.

P(P) Halts, thus H(P,P) needs to return true.


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

<V6g6K.5556$1%.5068@fx42.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30302&group=comp.theory#30302

 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!fx42.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>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IEf6K.167451$8V_7.91526@fx04.iad>
<87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QaSdndkWBrNIFsT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <QaSdndkWBrNIFsT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <V6g6K.5556$1%.5068@fx42.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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:24:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5422
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:24 UTC

On 4/15/22 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 10:09 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/15/22 10:36 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 21:42:05 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>>>>>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler
>>>>>>> "never
>>>>>>> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
>>>>>>> subjunctive mood?
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future
>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>> of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and
>>>>>> believe that
>>>>>> an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it is non-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
>>>>> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
>>>>> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
>>>> I'd prefer it if you said partial simulator.  I've urged PO not to
>>>> bother saying correct simulation, but he'll have to if you use the
>>>> naked
>>>> term for something that is not a correct simulator.
>>>> Also, one way or another, the top-level simulation must stop
>>>> (regardless
>>>> of what's being simulated) or it can't be used as a decider.
>>>
>>> And if the top-level simulation stops, then so must the identical copy
>>> processing the identical input that it is simulating.
>>>
>>> Some how PO seems to think that this isn't actually so, an idea that
>>> if true would wipe out all of Computer Science.
>>
>> Sure. Unfortunately for PO he knows can make H and the copy behave
>> differently because he can only image C code (or C++) code which has
>> access to the stack (and/or other global data).  Not that he's doing
>> that trick.  If he were, surely he'd make H return the right result
>> rather than the wrong one?
>>
>
> If I have a cow, and call it a cow I am correct by tautology.

IF you had a cow.

>
> If H has a non-halting input and calls it a non-halting then H is
> correct by tautology.

IF it had a non-halting input.

Since it doesn't, it isn't correct and you don't have a tautology but a
fallacy.

>
> I don't see why you deceitfully continue to deny this.

Because you aren't telling the truth but keep on insisting on your lies.

You can't make something true by just insisting on it.

You need to actually be able to show/prove it, which first means you
need to learn how to use logic and what all the words actually mean.

>
> You must be an atheist:
> Revelation 21:8 KJV ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake
> which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Glad you know your fate.

>
>> And of course the nested simulations /can/ all behave differently,
>> though this adds nothing of interest.  H and it's copy in Ĥ must behave
>> identically, but once either starts it's partial (or more likely stepped
>> until stopped) simulation it can keep track of the nesting level.
>>
>
>

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

<krg6K.840368$aT3.137091@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30303&group=comp.theory#30303

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QaSdnd4WBrN7F8T_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <QaSdnd4WBrN7F8T_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <krg6K.840368$aT3.137091@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:46:24 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4772
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:46 UTC

On 4/15/22 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 9:36 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 14 April 2022 at 21:42:05 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/2022 3:28 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt
>>>>>> then we know it is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Readers beware! Ask yourselves why PO does not say the simpler "never
>>>>> halts", but instead says "/would/ never halt". Why the implied
>>>>> subjunctive mood?
>>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict the future behavior of
>>>> of its simulated input. Many of my readers get confused and believe
>>>> that
>>>> an aborted simulation means that the simulated input has halted.
>>>>
>>>> To an academic audience of computer scientists I would simply say that
>>>> the behavior of the simulated input to H(P,P) conclusively proves that
>>>> it is non-halting.
>>>>
>>> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
>>> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
>>> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
>>
>> I'd prefer it if you said partial simulator.  I've urged PO not to
>> bother saying correct simulation, but he'll have to if you use the naked
>> term for something that is not a correct simulator.
>>
>> Also, one way or another, the top-level simulation must stop (regardless
>> of what's being simulated) or it can't be used as a decider.
>>
>
> So you acknowledge that the simulated input never halts (reaches its own
> final state) and yet still disagree that H is correct to report this.

So, you admit to not understanding basic English.

He didn't say the simulated input never halts.

He says the simulated input wouldn't halt if no/all copies of H don't
abort their simulation but in that case H fails to be a decider, so that
isn't allowed.

When we assume that H will meet the requirements of a decider, and thus
abort its simulation, then the simulated input WOULD halt if H actually
did a correct simulation (which it doesn't), as would be shown by
actually looking at the behavior of the machine that input represents.

>
> If I have a cow, and call it a cow I am correct by tautology.

Except, in this case, you don't have a cow, so you are just lying.

>
> If H has a non-halting input and calls it a non-halting then H is
> correct by tautology.

Nope, H has a HALTING input, BECAUSE its copy of H will abort its
simulation just like the H claiming (incorrectly) to be correct by
aborting its simulation.
>
> I don't see why you deceitfully continue to deny this.
>

You are the one being deceitfully by not taking everything into account
by omitting key dependencies.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<36adnUre3sEiBcT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30305&group=comp.theory#30305

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:09:35 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 11:09:33 -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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me>
<oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31sld$t8a$1@dont-email.me>
<26bf6f66-8ff9-44b5-8985-468130aec0c8n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <26bf6f66-8ff9-44b5-8985-468130aec0c8n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <36adnUre3sEiBcT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 122
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3VuUz38Md97MInRsP7uwL5w8C+9BAxl0XsWseUFaiEqzD1K5LPgzIugYGogvAb7u4HmKcwnL+0K3DhC!Vjs9fkt4r2DLHbi14v0fzFGeJn1A0qZkPaLB7pxUNBahNifCbTdITjrGFRMdiRkSdCkcogNyWlLe
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: 7712
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:09 UTC

On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:39:44 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 12:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
>>>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
>>>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
>>>>>>>> use the broken notation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
>>>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
>>>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
>>>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>
>>>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>> embedded in Ĥ"
>>>>
>>>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
>>>
>>> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
>>>
>>> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM that
>>> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
>>> this simulation would never end.
>> This claim is simply nonsense.
>>
>> A UTM is *defined* as a Turing Machine which takes as its input the
>> description of a computation and computes what the result of that
>> computation would be. While this is normally done via something which
>> might be described as 'simulation', that isn't part of the definition of
>> a UTM. UTMs are defined in terms of the *result* which they compute.
>>
>> If you have some TM which takes a string and prints an infinite number
>> of copies of that string to the tape (obviously, this is a non-halting
>> computation), then a UTM must also print and infinite number of copies
>> of that string to the tape. Would your SHD print an infinite number of
>> copies of string X when given a description of this TM and X as its
>> input? Unless the answer is 'yes', you're not dealing with a UTM.
>>
>> And since a UTM is defined by what it does rather than by the steps it
>> takes to do that, saying something acts as a UTM "until X" is entirely
>> meaningless.
>>
> Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle detector.
> You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a "modified
> UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is reasonable.
> And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the infinite cycle
> detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset of non-
> halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it can't
> be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat construct
> will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
>

A simulating halt decider computes the mapping from its inputs to its
own final states on the basis of the behavior of its correctly simulated
input.

Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts H is
necessarily correct to report this.

Because the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
embedded_H is necessarily correct to report this.

Everyone here seems to believe that deciders compute the mapping from
non-inputs even when they know that deciders only compute the mapping
from inputs.

They say that the believe that X is false when they know that X is true:
THIS MAKES THEM LIARS.

--
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) [ self-evident truth ]

<rTj6K.604640$LN2.252961@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30319&group=comp.theory#30319

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.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) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me>
<oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31sld$t8a$1@dont-email.me>
<26bf6f66-8ff9-44b5-8985-468130aec0c8n@googlegroups.com>
<36adnUre3sEiBcT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <36adnUre3sEiBcT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <rTj6K.604640$LN2.252961@fx13.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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:41:11 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9318
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 19:41 UTC

On 4/15/22 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:39:44 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 12:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
>>>>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
>>>>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
>>>>>>>>> use the broken notation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
>>>>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
>>>>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
>>>>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>>> embedded in Ĥ"
>>>>>
>>>>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
>>>>
>>>> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM
>>>> that
>>>> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
>>>> this simulation would never end.
>>> This claim is simply nonsense.
>>>
>>> A UTM is *defined* as a Turing Machine which takes as its input the
>>> description of a computation and computes what the result of that
>>> computation would be. While this is normally done via something which
>>> might be described as 'simulation', that isn't part of the definition of
>>> a UTM. UTMs are defined in terms of the *result* which they compute.
>>>
>>> If you have some TM which takes a string and prints an infinite number
>>> of copies of that string to the tape (obviously, this is a non-halting
>>> computation), then a UTM must also print and infinite number of copies
>>> of that string to the tape. Would your SHD print an infinite number of
>>> copies of string X when given a description of this TM and X as its
>>> input? Unless the answer is 'yes', you're not dealing with a UTM.
>>>
>>> And since a UTM is defined by what it does rather than by the steps it
>>> takes to do that, saying something acts as a UTM "until X" is entirely
>>> meaningless.
>>>
>> Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle
>> detector.
>> You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a
>> "modified
>> UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is
>> reasonable.
>> And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the
>> infinite cycle
>> detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset
>> of non-
>> halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it
>> can't
>> be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat
>> construct
>> will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
>>
>
> A simulating halt decider computes the mapping from its inputs to its
> own final states on the basis of the behavior of its correctly simulated
> input.
>
> Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts H is
> necessarily correct to report this.

No, not established.

You have shown that the correct simulation of an alternate input built
on an H that never aborts is non-haltiong, but that is an alternate
input, and not the input that you are now looking at with an halt
decider that does abort its input.

Remember, the input contains a copy of the decider, so every time you
change it you change your input so your previous 'proof' isn't
applicable any more.

FAIL.

>
> Because the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
> embedded_H is necessarily correct to report this.

Wrong, the correctly simulated input <H^> <H^> does halt, when CORRECTLY
simulated all the way to its end BECAUSE you have defined that your
embedded_H will (incorrectly) aborts its simulation and go to Qn.

This action of aborting its simulation make embedded_H no longer a
source of truth about the halting status of its input.

>
> Everyone here seems to believe that deciders compute the mapping from
> non-inputs even when they know that deciders only compute the mapping
> from inputs.
>

No, they need to figure out the mapping from the input, but in some
cases the mapping ISN'T computable, and then such a decider doesn't exist.

The definition of the mapping for a Halt Decider is that <M> w needs to
map to Qy if M applied to w halts, and to Qn if M applied to w never
halts, which for the input <H^> <H^> means that H needs to go to Qy if
H^ applied to <H^> Halts and to QN if H^ applied to <H^> never halts.

The fact that H^ applied to <H^> is just what is represented by the
input and not the input itself isn't an issue, as most deciders work on
representations anyway.

> They say that the believe that X is false when they know that X is true:
> THIS MAKES THEM LIARS.
>

H^ applied to <H^> Halts if H reject <H^> <H^> and thus BY DEFINI(TON H
was wrong to reject that input, as it represents a Halting Computation.

YOU say this is false, when it is the definition, and thus YOU are the
one who is wrong and that make YOU the LIAR.


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

<878rs6ovz1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30334&group=comp.theory#30334

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:52:34 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <878rs6ovz1.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QaSdnd4WBrN7F8T_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f8b67a7155e27a25649c34539ea91f50";
logging-data="28920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3eM6LKqn9YGb9G9MQ7yksAoS05v+q9GU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:95X2WVxlLaiFjMDmwQIQB3BoAlk=
sha1:vkBVgSmUAqucg7DfSLs872NLzZk=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.e9e36f576f8b56853101.20220415225234BST.878rs6ovz1.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 21:52 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/15/2022 9:36 AM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

>>> You have set up a confusing system, because a simulator is simulating
>>> a simulator. Eventually one of the simulators decides that the system
>>> of simulators simulating simultators will go on forever, and halts.
>>
>> I'd prefer it if you said partial simulator. I've urged PO not to
>> bother saying correct simulation, but he'll have to if you use the naked
>> term for something that is not a correct simulator.
>>
>> Also, one way or another, the top-level simulation must stop (regardless
>> of what's being simulated) or it can't be used as a decider.
>
> So you acknowledge that the simulated input never halts

WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! **comprehension alert**

--
Ben.

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

<87zgkmnh2w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30336&group=comp.theory#30336

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:59:35 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <87zgkmnh2w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IEf6K.167451$8V_7.91526@fx04.iad>
<87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<QaSdndkWBrNIFsT_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="f8b67a7155e27a25649c34539ea91f50";
logging-data="28920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ueyQMImRJPHqE6PuW0yPP7afm4jygPfY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Yx01DUWvMQsXaM+fgwzKxjlCMu4=
sha1:9tVudVP+wvzQZb9TXb2iiYMe8Hg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.5b7d7d5351c192b16abd.20220415225935BST.87zgkmnh2w.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 21:59 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> You must be an atheist:
> Revelation 21:8 KJV ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake
> which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

And you must be a fool:

"the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
halting computation"

"Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
times."

"No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many
times."

About H(P,P) == false:
"Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts"

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30337&group=comp.theory#30337

 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) [ liar by definition ]
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 23:03:36 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="73c1be91855e17b44b697e3ec3eb3e25";
logging-data="28920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rVAgymEdt7cKmNYZhu4lW/wPFdGCaCTE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fhf4ysQfMKSrejukQz9mScAY81w=
sha1:KU866oBpYSKIKJId/wpEnNlUVmI=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.161b534fc3dfe10f9e65.20220415230336BST.87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:03 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/15/2022 6:48 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>>> you call a non input:
>>>
>>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>>
>> No. The correct value of H(P,P) is not for you to choose.
>
> I have proven that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts
> therefore H would be necessarily correct to report this?

H(M,I) should be false if and only if M(I) does not halt. H(P,P) is
false even though P(P) halts. You don't get to define the problem. You
just get to be wrong.

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Why lie ? ]

<87o812ngky.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30338&group=comp.theory#30338

 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) [ Why lie ? ]
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 23:10:21 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <87o812ngky.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vcidnT01o4J7IsX_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmer2y3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<mbSdnVeuLuB0FcT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="73c1be91855e17b44b697e3ec3eb3e25";
logging-data="28920"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181zw9eryFm/7hg6PWq04ZigF/FowO6NZg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DrXH8N9yKz6sXkrkmuks81FEo5s=
sha1:nfCM4z2abC+iwS38AWNfW9JXc70=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.b217886e0cc9941993df.20220415231021BST.87o812ngky.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:10 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/15/2022 6:39 AM, Ben wrote:

>> Anyway, you don't get to say what the correct answer is.
>
> Computer science says that...

WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! **wonky paraphrase alert**

You should stick to stating your claims. Your understanding of what the
experts say is abysmal and adds nothing to your argument, though it
sometimes provides a bit of comic relief.

--
Ben.

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

<teydnVQcd9ZHcMT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30339&group=comp.theory#30339

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:12:42 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:12:41 -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>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IEf6K.167451$8V_7.91526@fx04.iad>
<87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QaSdndkWBrNIFsT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkmnh2w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87zgkmnh2w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <teydnVQcd9ZHcMT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-VfuVRf7iLV0md8hvEwGwnpyErKVK5NKDrn/u4ZHkHbY3sOS7Sm/hAtcnIV5+/bHJQ/04WYjcmMYftVO!Z+Duhc344A71tGVRZMensufI94OtORYb3ZqQoi3JPCLzfIEeDVo+Qk94U/ETlkl1ajZjXuxkdg8a
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: 3429
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:12 UTC

On 4/15/2022 4:59 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> You must be an atheist:
>> Revelation 21:8 KJV ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake
>> which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
>
> And you must be a fool:
>
> "the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
> halting computation"
>

The important thing is the easily verified fact that the input to H(P,P)
is non-halting therefore H(P,P)==false is true by logical necessity.

André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard are mentally retarded relative to the
concept of logical necessity.

They don't understand that when {an X is a Y} that anything and
everything contradicting that {an X is a Y} must be incorrect.

◊P ⟷ ¬□¬P;
Possibly(P) ⟷ Not(Necessarily(Not(P)))

□P ⟷ ¬◊¬P;
Necessarily(P) ⟷ Not(Possibly(Not(P)))

> "Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
> times."
>
> "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many
> times."
>
> About H(P,P) == false:
> "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts"
>

--
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) [ liar by definition ]

<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30340&group=comp.theory#30340

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:17:38 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:17:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
liar by definition ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 37
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Dcfydo63Qm1ic2fhqcoHABbh3JfVQZSfCgzQuJpMwBu3iuadYu7vZgxvWkJuVSfPfPmNxU/NyFGAQwM!B9z3hUdpL8xkimy12XZN6zhSYwpu9wPcmkqww8IEb6Gb2bzKy2PFhGn9llWpRuA7+5tPNV4HapSe
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: 3251
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:17 UTC

On 4/15/2022 5:03 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/15/2022 6:48 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>>>> you call a non input:
>>>>
>>>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>>>
>>> No. The correct value of H(P,P) is not for you to choose.
>>
>> I have proven that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts
>> therefore H would be necessarily correct to report this?
>
> H(M,I) should be false if and only if M(I) does not halt.

The fact that the input H(P,P) is non-halting completely refutes
anything and everyone in the universe that says otherwise.

When {an X is a Y} anything and everyone that disagrees is a liar.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Why lie ? ]

<beqdnWriEc8xcsT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30342&group=comp.theory#30342

 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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:20:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 17:20:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Why lie ? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vcidnT01o4J7IsX_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmer2y3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <mbSdnVeuLuB0FcT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o812ngky.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87o812ngky.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <beqdnWriEc8xcsT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 31
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-q2DKgVZ/ifnR9UmTmlib4Xb6I7W4wlA4e9neycqtlwypTxs+uptz1/9dyZySPTZjObJ0Hdcy8JdhZEY!Neh2Y2m3gpkNyuG16DnYCTHFCyiTjeVwRXxjeBj9X+zTlkBGUv5+glQGhKviNNPoEGWXUYLdRkl4
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: 2908
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:20 UTC

On 4/15/2022 5:10 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/15/2022 6:39 AM, Ben wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, you don't get to say what the correct answer is.
>>
>> Computer science says that...
>
> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! **wonky paraphrase alert**
>

On 4/15/2022 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> Computer science says that any input to a halt decider that
> would never reach its own final state is non-halting.

The above is the rest of the quote that you despicably removed.
You are such a complete Jackass.

> You should stick to stating your claims. Your understanding of what the
> experts say is abysmal and adds nothing to your argument, though it
> sometimes provides a bit of comic relief.
>

--
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 ]

<4pm6K.420044$iK66.312753@fx46.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30346&group=comp.theory#30346

 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!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx46.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>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t3861c$tbc$1@dont-email.me>
<V4ydnbyFmPX4Acr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7ru6vm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<77mdnbyuM9iGrsX_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <878rs7s92t.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8rmdncC5Nb6LGsX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<73f32808-6d8b-4ab3-9eac-74c4d7634c26n@googlegroups.com>
<874k2uquqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IEf6K.167451$8V_7.91526@fx04.iad>
<87y206penl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <QaSdndkWBrNIFsT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkmnh2w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <teydnVQcd9ZHcMT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <teydnVQcd9ZHcMT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <4pm6K.420044$iK66.312753@fx46.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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:33:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4180
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:33 UTC

On 4/15/22 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 4:59 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> You must be an atheist:
>>> Revelation 21:8 KJV ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake
>>> which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
>>
>> And you must be a fool:
>>
>>    "the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
>>    halting computation"
>>
>
> The important thing is the easily verified fact that the input to H(P,P)
> is non-halting therefore H(P,P)==false is true by logical necessity.

No, it is NOT easily verified, at least not for the H that you claim
gets the right answer, as your proof assumes that H never aborts its
simulation.

Since you don't look at the actual input that you are actually using,
you don't actually prove anything about it.

>
> André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard are mentally retarded relative to the
> concept of logical necessity.

Nope, you are ignorant of the requirement to

>
> They don't understand that when {an X is a Y} that anything and
> everything contradicting that {an X is a Y} must be incorrect.

Except that you haven't actually defined what an X is.

>
> ◊P ⟷ ¬□¬P;
> Possibly(P) ⟷ Not(Necessarily(Not(P)))
>
> □P ⟷ ¬◊¬P;
> Necessarily(P) ⟷ Not(Possibly(Not(P)))
>

There is no 'Possibily' with Turing Machines with specific input. There
either IS or there ISN'T.

You also seem to forget that to say that something is possible, it must
have greater than a zero chance of occuring, but you never actaully
prove that.

Your problem is you don't actually look at a specific H with its
required specific input, so you confuse two different H's which have
different inputs.

It is a logical error to give two things the same nane in a proof. The
decider you call H must either Aborts its simulation of its input, or it
doesn't.

FAIL.

>
>
>
>>    "Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
>>    times."
>>
>>    "No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many
>>    times."
>>
>>    About H(P,P) == false:
>>    "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts"
>>
>
>

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

<brm6K.420045$iK66.328304@fx46.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30348&group=comp.theory#30348

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!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!fx46.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) [
liar by definition ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <brm6K.420045$iK66.328304@fx46.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: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 18:35:51 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3331
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 22:35 UTC

On 4/15/22 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 5:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/15/2022 6:48 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> you call a non input:
>>>>>
>>>>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>>>>
>>>> No.  The correct value of H(P,P) is not for you to choose.
>>>
>>> I have proven that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts
>>> therefore H would be necessarily correct to report this?
>>
>> H(M,I) should be false if and only if M(I) does not halt.
>
> The fact that the input H(P,P) is non-halting completely refutes
> anything and everyone in the universe that says otherwise.

The fact that the input to H(P,P) halts when H(P,P) returns non-halting
shows that YOU lie, and are totally ignorant of what you are talking about.

>
> When {an X is a Y} anything and everyone that disagrees is a liar.
>
>

Right, and since the input to H(P,P) will halt when H(P,P) says it is
non-halting, which is a wrong answer, YOU are the liar for saying it is
correct.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30471&group=comp.theory#30471

 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) [ liar by definition ]
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 02:08:15 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="bd3602b82cb77c29e1d3d51f63320191";
logging-data="19285"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vxSmywwqgiHqNqS/2WhCcg+scs2VxES8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YfTkRaxkAz1enrwyulg7smN5/AQ=
sha1:n8bAsvdIzmGnRxWecggRe0FtZDo=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.c84ebd87f71e934d6e90.20220417020815BST.87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:08 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/15/2022 5:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/15/2022 6:48 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>>>>> you call a non input:
>>>>>
>>>>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>>>>
>>>> No. The correct value of H(P,P) is not for you to choose.
>>>
>>> I have proven that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts
>>> therefore H would be necessarily correct to report this?
>> H(M,I) should be false if and only if M(I) does not halt.
>
> The fact that the input H(P,P) is non-halting completely refutes
> anything and everyone in the universe that says otherwise.

It's a mantra now. Do you hope that one day someone here will go "yes!"
of course H(P,P)==false event though P(P) halts is irrelevant because
<droning monotone voice> "the input H(P,P) is non-halting"? Not going
to happen. H(M,I) should be false if and only if M(I) does not halt.

> When {an X is a Y} anything and everyone that disagrees is a liar.

You've repeated elsewhere that you are certain you are right and that
the only possibly objections are lies. Why on earth are you wasting
time talking to a bunch of liars? Do you want to read the same lies
again and again? You are, if you honestly believe what you've said
about being certain, just wasting your time now.

Of course the whole point is to just keep people chatting and that
working just fine, so there's no problem here. I take it you want
people to keep posting what you believe to be lies, yes?

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30473&group=comp.theory#30473

 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: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 20:11:05 -0500
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 20:11:05 -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) [
liar by definition ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 67
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0tB75EKJ/2LwUhMGF6wtpZoXxmVBQy0HAPDORiFLNGpa6mpthLtT3pkQHsNtnYB6+sYosw4P00Y7LzS!v+v7A6p1B8VUvczEab+d1lNRAKLA74rWnke0SeQnTHxuZyRY/n4W2IWgBL6aoZZmrNu8/x18Qs8C
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: 4488
 by: olcott - Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:11 UTC

On 4/16/2022 8:08 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/15/2022 5:03 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:48 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very
>>>>>>>> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that
>>>>>>>> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what
>>>>>>> you call a non input:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE
>>>>>
>>>>> No. The correct value of H(P,P) is not for you to choose.
>>>>
>>>> I have proven that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never halts
>>>> therefore H would be necessarily correct to report this?
>>> H(M,I) should be false if and only if M(I) does not halt.
>>
>> The fact that the input H(P,P) is non-halting completely refutes
>> anything and everyone in the universe that says otherwise.
>
> It's a mantra now.
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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Why lie ? ]

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

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30476&group=comp.theory#30476

 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) [ Why lie ? ]
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 02:24:33 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87tuaslcxa.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<vcidnT01o4J7IsX_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmer2y3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<mbSdnVeuLuB0FcT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o812ngky.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWriEc8xcsT_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="bd3602b82cb77c29e1d3d51f63320191";
logging-data="19285"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JQBU3QvmaRS3oJ2EXOb094+HLWIsQ22Q="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ovZ1Dmr3dBZNNOGpP5boj3nl5u8=
sha1:ZmF5+JVynw78kZ3EuSyoPD/hWDc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7ff3c876a4220273fc69.20220417022433BST.87tuaslcxa.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Sun, 17 Apr 2022 01:24 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/15/2022 5:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/15/2022 6:39 AM, Ben wrote:
>>
>>>> Anyway, you don't get to say what the correct answer is.
>>>
>>> Computer science says that...
>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! **wonky paraphrase alert**
>
> On 4/15/2022 10:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>> Computer science says that any input to a halt decider that
>> would never reach its own final state is non-halting.
>
> The above is the rest of the quote that you despicably removed.
> You are such a complete Jackass.

I'll remember to keep the wonky paraphrase intact in future. I was not
accusing you of lying about what "computer science" says, just of not
understanding what it says. This is true, I'm sure, of all your "so
what you are saying is..." catastrophes. Hanlon's Razor and all that.

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor