Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Knowledge, sir, should be free to all! -- Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3


devel / comp.theory / Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

SubjectAuthor
* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMr Flibble
`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
 `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderDavid Brown
  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |   +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | | +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |   | | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |   |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |   |  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |   `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |    +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |   |    +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |   |    |+* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderJeff Barnett
   |   | |   |    ||+- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderJeff Barnett
   |   | |   |    ||`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |   |    || +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |    || `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderJeff Barnett
   |   | |   |    ||  `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |   |    |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |    | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |   |    |  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |    |   +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |    |   `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |    |    `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   |    `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderwij
   |   | |   +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |   | |   |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |   | |   |  `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |   `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |    +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |    |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |    | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |    |  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |   | |    |   `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | |    `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |     |+- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |     | +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |     | |+* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderAndy Walker
   |   | |     | ||`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |     | || +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMalcolm McLean
   |   | |     | || |+* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ]olcott
   |   | |     | || ||`- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 isRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || |+* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ]olcott
   |   | |     | || ||+- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 isAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||+* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 isRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || |||`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 isMalcolm McLean
   |   | |     | || ||| `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 isRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || |||  `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 isJeff Barnett
   |   | |     | || ||`- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ]Ben Bacarisse
   |   | |     | || |+* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderBen Bacarisse
   |   | |     | || ||`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMalcolm McLean
   |   | |     | || || `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox ratherolcott
   |   | |     | || ||  +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox ratherRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox ratherAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||   `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ]olcott
   |   | |     | || ||    +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||    `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||     `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ]olcott
   |   | |     | || ||      +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||      |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesolcott
   |   | |     | || ||      | `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||      `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesJeff Barnett
   |   | |     | || ||       `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesolcott
   |   | |     | || ||        `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||         +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesolcott
   |   | |     | || ||         |+- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||         |`- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||         `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesolcott
   |   | |     | || ||          +* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||          |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ]olcott
   |   | |     | || ||          | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||          |  `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesolcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |   +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||          |   +- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||          |   `* _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theolcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    +* _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[André G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||          |    |`* _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[olcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | +* _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[André G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |`* _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_Malcolm McLean
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | | `* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malcolm_]olcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  +* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_MalcRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  |`* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malcolcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  | `* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_MalcRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  |  `* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malcolm_](_attention_deficit_disorder_)olcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  |   `* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_MalcRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  |    `* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malcolcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  |     +- _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_MalcRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  |     +* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malcolm_](_attention_deficit_disorder_)olcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  |     `* André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ MalcolmBen Bacarisse
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  +* _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_MalcAndré G. Isaak
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | |  `- _André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_MalcJeff Barnett
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | +- _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[Richard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||          |    | `* _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theolcott
   |   | |     | || ||          |    `- _Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[Richard Damon
   |   | |     | || ||          `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutesRichard Damon
   |   | |     | || |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |     | || `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderAndy Walker
   |   | |     | |`* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMike Terry
   |   | |     | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderwij
   |   | |     `- Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderChris M. Thomasson
   |   | `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderRichard Damon
   |   `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderMalcolm McLean
   `* Black box halt decider is NOT a partial deciderJeff Barnett

Pages:123456789101112131415161718192021
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ]

<dmKLI.16510$qL.15929@fx14.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=18996&group=comp.theory#18996

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx14.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is
correct ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<zyHJI.20655$7H7.13829@fx42.iad> <sd8bim$1set$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87eebrlv2m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdckqo$cm8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87a6mehx5q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdfbv2$14bi$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<875yx0he2s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdffqm$jsh$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87zgucfux4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me>
<87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<Ob2dneXfOsPHVGD9nZ2dnUU78aHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<tOudnQr4N_JfUGD9nZ2dnUU78fHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<877dhec8wh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dtudnULpgO1VVWP9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmv4ab6r.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <k-OdnQ8yiKu2wWL9nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <k-OdnQ8yiKu2wWL9nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <dmKLI.16510$qL.15929@fx14.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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 19:40:08 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 2560
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:40 UTC

On 7/26/21 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it
>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving
>>> that this input never halts.
>>
>> Who cares?  H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. 
>
> When you feed the system self-contradictory input you get an
> inconsistent result that can be used to refute Rice.
>

You don't get inconsistent results, as if the results change from run to
run then you have just proven that H isn't a computation, and thus not a
decider.

Also, H saying it can't give the right answer isn't giving the right
answer, it is just admitting that it will be wrong.

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ]

<OCKLI.27038$sI4.15948@fx40.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=18997&group=comp.theory#18997

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx40.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is
correct ]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<sd7een$js8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <zyHJI.20655$7H7.13829@fx42.iad>
<sd8bim$1set$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87eebrlv2m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdckqo$cm8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87a6mehx5q.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdfbv2$14bi$2@gioia.aioe.org> <875yx0he2s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdffqm$jsh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87zgucfux4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me> <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<Ob2dneXfOsPHVGD9nZ2dnUU78aHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<tOudnQr4N_JfUGD9nZ2dnUU78fHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<877dhec8wh.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<BM6dnZyWXYxlYWD9nZ2dnUU78WfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<dtudnUPpgO0PWmP9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmm0d$1n1$1@dont-email.me>
<xbednQcGH_k2w2L9nZ2dnUU78IHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<OuGdnaFmLrSh-WL9nZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OuGdnaFmLrSh-WL9nZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <OCKLI.27038$sI4.15948@fx40.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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 19:57:49 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 7744
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:57 UTC

On 7/26/21 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 8:17 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 26/07/2021 16:57, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-26 08:32, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have the paradox incorrectly. While the input to H(P,P) is
>>>> simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a
>>>> final state thus conclusively proving that this input never halts.
>>>
>>> But The halting problem isn't concerned with the input to H(P, P),
>>> which is simply a representation. It's concerned with the *actual*
>>> computation which that input represents.  That would be P(P) run
>>> independently, and, like any other computation, there is exactly one
>>> correct answer to the question 'does it halt'?
>>>
>>> The input to H isn't a computation; it's just data on the tape. So it
>>> is meaningless to ask whether the input to H halts. What happens
>>> inside some simulation in some 'mode' isn't the question which the
>>> halting problem asks.
>>>
>>>> Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily
>>>> conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot
>>>> possibly reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully
>>>> examine these things is a liar and a cheat.
>>>
>>> Since a pure simulation of a computation must do *exactly* what the
>>> actual computation does, if P(P) halts and your simulation does not,
>>> then it is *not* a pure simulation.
>>>
>>>> When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops
>>>> simulating its input, this input still never reaches its final
>>>> state, thus never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best
>>>> definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between
>>>> halting (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation
>>>> aborted).
>>>
>>> The fact that you keep acknowledging me for this is a good
>>> illustration of the fundamental problem here. I never said anything
>>> insightful or novel. The definition I gave was exactly the same one
>>> you should have gotten from reading Linz or Sipser or any other
>>> introductory text on the subject.
>>>
>>> The fact that you are still requiring clarification on something as
>>> basic as the definition of 'halting' after however many years of
>>> working on your 'proof' clearly demonstrates that you simply lack the
>>> background to make any claims at all about this problem.
>>>
>>> Now perhaps you should refocus your attention from your 'proof' to
>>> actually learning the subject which you claim to be talking about.
>>> Learn what it means to halt. Learn what a computation is (hint: your
>>> P is definitely *not* a computation). Learn what a proof is (hint: a
>>> trace does not even remotely qualify as a proof of anything). Then
>>> come back and review all the work you have done once you've actually
>>> learned the subject matter.
>>
>> Sensible advice, but... if PO were /capable/ of learning such topics,
>> he would have done so many years ago.  I'm sure he would have made
>> efforts in the past (i.e. in his younger life) to take this much
>> easier route, but I imagine each time he just became baffled by all
>> those symbols, and abstract ideas like TM, halting, truth, proof, set,
>> function, and so on.   He doesn't do "abstract" because he /can't/ -
>> his brain just doesn't work that way.
>>
>> That's why he must denigrate others with the ability to understand
>> basic concepts like this, as "learned by rote" people.
>
> It is clearly true that mathematicians never ever carefully examine the
> philosophical underpinnings of the fundamental nature of truth itself as
> proven by the fact the no one will evaluate the Tarski proof.
> http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_Proof_275_276.pdf

Wrong, that arguement doesn't seem to handle the question that we have here.

For the Halting Problem, and many Mathematical concepts, we have
something that we KNOW must be either True or False, but we don't (at
least at this time know which). The concept of Undecideablity is that it
is possible that this statement X might be True, but No proof can exists
to prove that, or X might be False, and likewise not proof can prove
that. Thus, X has a Truth value, but there is no way to prove what it is.

For the Halting Problem, this relates to the fact that the can exist a
Machine P and an input I that we can not know if it will Halt or Not,
that no Computation can answer the question to positively prove that
P(I) is or is not a Halting Machine.

The Linz proof, that for a given H there is a machine that it can not
get right, is a step to towards that larger statement.

>
> They never realize that these philosophical underpinnings can turn the
> ultimate basis of Gödel's work on its ear because they never examine
> these things.

The issue is that the Logic of Truth is Provable can't handle the field
of Mathematics and stay consistent. Godel's prove basically says that
either you need to reject that the basic properties of Mathematic
'exist' or you need to accept that some statements can not be provable.

>
> If analytical truth and provability mutually define each other then true
> and unprovable is utterly impossible and incompleteness cannot possibly
> exist. Sentences that are neither provable nor refutable are simply not
> truth bearers.

But it turns out that Logic has SHOWN that the equating of analytical
truth and provability limits the logical operations you can do in your
logical system or you will get inconsistent results. I think you don't
understand this restriction. In particular, the operations used to
define the Mathematics of the Natural Numbers is enough to break any
system that tries to hold to Truth is Provable.

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=18998&group=comp.theory#18998

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:18:47 -0500
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87zgucfux4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me> <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org> <eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com> <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com> <dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:18:46 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 108
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1FxUhiFz4MbxZ0t68T5tU6G/4C8SGZjpmKraQ9nSP1CQI37TBi2XBTgxmPthXHTtlmBxQvVBsUkPCxA!vI8rSNGUu/C1DUVwfi5YVcDECNoTcgvg5BaRNrSzGvXs6TYFTOQz60WHz7x2U+W1K2Lzpokt2Q==
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: 6570
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:18 UTC

On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 19:30, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/26/2021 8:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-26 19:03, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/2021 7:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-26 18:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/26/2021 2:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-07-26 12:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the exact same way it is a mistake to take the fact that the
>>>>>>>> P of int main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state
>>>>>>>> as an indication that it is a halting computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have a serious difficulty processing definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The *definition* of a halting computation is a computation which
>>>>>>> reaches one of its final states in a finite number of steps. This
>>>>>>> refers only to the *actual* computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This definition exhaustively partitions the set of computations
>>>>>>> into two mutually-exclusive groups. If we observe that a
>>>>>>> computation such as P(P) reaches a final state in a finite number
>>>>>>> of steps, it goes in the halting group. Otherwise, it goes into
>>>>>>> the non-halting group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition is clear and unambiguous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not mention anything about simulators or aborted
>>>>>>> simulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It makes no exceptions for 'pathological' inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this
>>>>>> refutes Rice.
>>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this
>>>>>> refutes Rice.
>>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this
>>>>>> refutes Rice.
>>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this
>>>>>> refutes Rice.
>>>>>
>>>>> There *are no* patholological inputs. There are simply inputs that
>>>>> H gets wrong. There's nothing absolutely 'pathological' about that.
>>>>
>>>> If my system recognizes whatever you want to call it the cases where
>>>> the halt decider gets wrong, this refutes Rice.
>>>
>>> What does that unsubstantiated claim have to do with the question I'd
>>> asked, which was:
>>>
>>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>>
>>
>> That does not currently matter,
>
> Of course it currently matters.
>
>> as long as we can consistently use H(P,P) != P(P) to detect and reject
>> the halting problem counter-examples we have refuted Rice's theorem.
>
> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>
> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say 'the
> answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour of P(P).
>
> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That your
> machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly isn't
> recognizing them.
>

When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.

When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.

When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.

>> Is it possible for you to detect when the subject has been changed or
>> do you have a hard-coded robot brain?
>
> You seem to 'change the subject' whenever you get stuck. Why not try
> actually sticking with a subject for a change rather than simply
> sweeping all objections under the rug and then claiming that no one has
> given you good arguments (a common tact with you).
>
> >> If your your system is really capable of recogonizing the inputs that
> >> it gets wrong, why does it still get them wrong?
>
>> Self-contradictory input is incorrect in the same way that the liar
>> paradox is neither true nor false.
>
> There *is no input* when I ask you to justify the claim that P(P)
> doesn't halt when it clearly does not. I'm asking about the behaviour of
> the computation P(P).
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=18999&group=comp.theory#18999

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[
_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 21:24:52 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me> <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:24:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5247ba9ac8ecc9d9899cddbca3bf31e2";
logging-data="23801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rAsabOzM+7PHfaUGsCqSP"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5FB4t+EPVgxvtyLv7OaVDYG+Sfc=
In-Reply-To: <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:24 UTC

On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>
>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say 'the
>> answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour of P(P).
>>
>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly isn't
>> recognizing them.
>>
>
> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.

But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify which
non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your allegedly
"pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases wrong, but it
doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.

We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.

And you still haven't answered my question:

How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).

André

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

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<o0LLI.18269$Ei1.12806@fx07.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19000&group=comp.theory#19000

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!fdc3.netnews.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx07.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[
_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me> <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <o0LLI.18269$Ei1.12806@fx07.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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 20:25:08 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 2717
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:25 UTC

On 7/26/21 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly isn't
>> recognizing them.
>>
>
> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>
> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>
> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.

It isn't ALLOWED to reject the inputs and still be a proper decider.

All that is doing is admitting defeat.

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19001&group=comp.theory#19001

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:31:20 -0500
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[
_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:31:19 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tZs9waGqjsWI4OymGlajzQ4lRo7j1cEd9Ad9vbFRHMguxTtS1q0aqp8y6fO4bGLbOPFoPECeVv+EckL!dsiAUqmood3VUVo0x2j3nWas/UdOYcVidaGYHhn89MIErqxpNaiNuL6wkBwpLguGZ1pII0GVgw==
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: 3829
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:31 UTC

On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>>
>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say 'the
>>> answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour of P(P).
>>>
>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly isn't
>>> recognizing them.
>>>
>>
>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>
> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify which
> non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your allegedly
> "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases wrong, but it
> doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.
>

I have explained this totally several times now.
if H(P,P) != P(P)
incorrect input
else
correct input.

> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.
>
> And you still haven't answered my question:
>
> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>
> André
>

It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P)
never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are merely a liar.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19002&group=comp.theory#19002

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[
_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 21:55:22 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:55:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5247ba9ac8ecc9d9899cddbca3bf31e2";
logging-data="31309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ntxsykODOLYv9cObgM57Y"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:szu6QIbDulWiN731Pd4sAiaa/WA=
In-Reply-To: <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 03:55 UTC

On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>>>
>>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say 'the
>>>> answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour of P(P).
>>>>
>>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>>>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly
>>>> isn't recognizing them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
>>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>>
>> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify which
>> non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your
>> allegedly "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases
>> wrong, but it doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.
>>
>
> I have explained this totally several times now.
> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>   incorrect input
> else
>   correct input.

Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?

As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
actually mean 'the halting status of P'.

If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
computed, not just about things that can be stated.

H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
(otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).

>> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.
>>
>> And you still haven't answered my question:
>>
>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>
>> André
>>
>
> It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P)
> never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are merely a liar.

That doesn't answer my question. Given that P(P) meets the definition of
halting, how can you claim it is *not* halting? The definition of
halting makes no mention of pure simulations, so the above isn't an answer.

And it is not definitely true that a pure simulation of P(P) never halts
since, by definition, a pure simulation behaves in the same was as the
actual computation. If PURESIMULATION(P, P) doesn't behave in the same
way as P(P), then it isn't really a pure simulation.

André

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

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<4NLLI.11167$yN6.4759@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19003&group=comp.theory#19003

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[
_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <4NLLI.11167$yN6.4759@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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 21:17:03 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 5506
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:17 UTC

On 7/26/21 8:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>>>
>>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say 'the
>>>> answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour of P(P).
>>>>
>>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>>>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly
>>>> isn't recognizing them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
>>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>>
>> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify which
>> non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your
>> allegedly "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases
>> wrong, but it doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.
>>
>
> I have explained this totally several times now.
> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>   incorrect input
> else
>   correct input.

But your H is incapable of determining this.

There are 4 possible templates for P

THe H^ of Linz which act contrary.
A reverse of that which does exactly what H says.
A version that Always Halts.
A version that Never Halts.

You algorithm, because it never gets past the simulation loop, can't
tell these apart so won't be correct in rejecting the contrary case.

Also, the problem doesn't provide for an 'incorrect' input case, and
actually CAN'T in its proper form, as H^ is only 'incorrect' for the H
that it was built from, if H does return an answer for H(P,P) then some
other decider can PROPERLY decide what P(P) does, and since Halting is a
property of the computation alone, its 'right' answer can't be different
for H then for this other decider.

This says the concept of allowing H to say 'incorrect input' is flawed.

It also doesn't achieve your goal, as many other proofs, not based on
this form of contrary action still hold, so we still have the fact that
there exist machines that NO machine can be proved to correctly decide.

>
>> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.
>>
>> And you still haven't answered my question:
>>
>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>
>> André
>>
>
> It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P)
> never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are merely a liar.
>
>

That is incorrect, as YOU have shown a simulation if P(P), which is the
input to H(P,P) that comes to a Halt (as long as H(P,P) returns the
non-halting answer).

If what you mean is that no H can reach the halting point of H(P,P) that
doesn't really mean anything, as we KNOW that IF H does eventually
aborts its simulation and return non-Halting, the the P for THAT H will
Halt, and thus show THAT H to be wrong, and if H NEVER aborts is
simulation, THAT H never answers H(P,P) and the IT is proved not a
correct decider.

In both cases, and thus for ALL H, we have shown that H is wrong.

If some H existed that DID reach a Halting state in simulation H(P,P)
then that H could correctly return Halting, but such an H is impossible,
because we know that if H does return Halting, then H^ (called P) will
go to its never halting state, so no H can ever reach that point BECAUSE
H^ is built so no H can be correct in deciding it.

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<GuWdnf1GJdSME2L9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19004&group=comp.theory#19004

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:39:45 -0500
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org> <eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com> <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com> <dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me> <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me> <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 23:39:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <GuWdnf1GJdSME2L9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 90
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IFS5kv7cSBSBj600ciFb7zuiirA51zcTfRb8hzKeoKHtNkwv3QPY5CGjZ8RCEmM/uuFcssyGsTwc2WP!kDijs1oeQjj1dyebwe1XhSwX6FX+ot6TFlMfT4c8Gi9/r/YV2c6B2hOMWix+qswkN99AUvjstw==
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: 5599
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:39 UTC

On 7/26/2021 10:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>>>>
>>>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say
>>>>> 'the answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour
>>>>> of P(P).
>>>>>
>>>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>>>>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly
>>>>> isn't recognizing them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
>>>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>>>
>>> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify which
>>> non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your
>>> allegedly "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases
>>> wrong, but it doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.
>>>
>>
>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>    incorrect input
>> else
>>    correct input.
>
> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>
> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>
> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>
> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>

If H can detect that it gets the wrong answer then it can return the
opposite answer which is also wrong because the input is defined to
contradict whatever H returns. H returns -1 for incorrect input.

>>> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.
>>>
>>> And you still haven't answered my question:
>>>
>>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>> never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are merely a
>> liar.
>
> That doesn't answer my question. Given that P(P) meets the definition of
> halting, how can you claim it is *not* halting?

As I have said far too many times seeming to prove that you are only a
liar on this issue the verifiable fact that the pure simulation of the
input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state proves that it
never halts.

> The definition of
> halting makes no mention of pure simulations, so the above isn't an answer.
>
> And it is not definitely true that a pure simulation of P(P) never halts
> since, by definition, a pure simulation behaves in the same was as the
> actual computation. If PURESIMULATION(P, P) doesn't behave in the same
> way as P(P), then it isn't really a pure simulation.
>
> André
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<sdo3sg$fb6$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19005&group=comp.theory#19005

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[
_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:59:59 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <sdo3sg$fb6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<GuWdnf1GJdSME2L9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 05:00:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5247ba9ac8ecc9d9899cddbca3bf31e2";
logging-data="15718"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XPgFHrFKl74Q+fYWqKRim"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qau44NwqNe9mdx1zd8hPx6pAFuk=
In-Reply-To: <GuWdnf1GJdSME2L9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 04:59 UTC

On 2021-07-26 22:39, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 10:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say
>>>>>> 'the answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour
>>>>>> of P(P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>>>>>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly
>>>>>> isn't recognizing them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
>>>>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>>>>
>>>> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify
>>>> which non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your
>>>> allegedly "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases
>>>> wrong, but it doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>    incorrect input
>>> else
>>>    correct input.
>>
>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?

I really wish you'd answer this. Better yet, just stop writing in
pseudo-math and state what you mean in English so we don't constantly
have to guess.

>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>
>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>
>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>
>
> If H can detect that it gets the wrong answer then it can return the
> opposite answer which is also wrong because the input is defined to
> contradict whatever H returns. H returns -1 for incorrect input.

But HOW can H detect that it gets the wrong answer? To do that it would
need to include a halt decider which CORRECTLY decides that P(P) is
halting so that it can compare the result of that decider with its own
answer. Do you have such a decider? I assume not, or you would have used
it in the first place.

And halt deciders either accept an input as halting, or reject it as
non-halting. There isn't a third '-1' option for a halt decider as the
term is used in computational theory or in the Linz or Sipser proofs.

Plus you're now contradicting your repeated claim that H(P, P) == 0. If
H(P, P) returns -1, what happens inside of P when its copy of H returns -1?

>
>>>> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> And you still haven't answered my question:
>>>>
>>>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>>>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>> never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are merely a
>>> liar.
>>
>> That doesn't answer my question. Given that P(P) meets the definition
>> of halting, how can you claim it is *not* halting?
>
> As I have said far too many times seeming to prove that you are only a
> liar on this issue the verifiable fact that the pure simulation of the
> input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state proves that it
> never halts.

And as I pointed out, the definition of halting refers *only* to the
behaviour of P(P), not to anything which occurs inside some simulator,
pure or otherwise. P(P) clearly meets that definition.

If there is some definition involving pure simulations it is yours and
yours alone and does not correspond to the accepted meaning of
'halting'. By the accepted meaning P(P) unambiguously halts. Any claim
to the contrary is simply WRONG.

André

>> The definition of halting makes no mention of pure simulations, so the
>> above isn't an answer.
>>
>> And it is not definitely true that a pure simulation of P(P) never
>> halts since, by definition, a pure simulation behaves in the same was
>> as the actual computation. If PURESIMULATION(P, P) doesn't behave in
>> the same way as P(P), then it isn't really a pure simulation.
>>
>> André
>>
>
>

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

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<hKMLI.4908$xn6.4117@fx23.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19006&group=comp.theory#19006

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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!fx23.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[
_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<GuWdnf1GJdSME2L9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <GuWdnf1GJdSME2L9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <hKMLI.4908$xn6.4117@fx23.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: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 22:22:20 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 6499
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 05:22 UTC

On 7/26/21 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 10:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say
>>>>>> 'the answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour
>>>>>> of P(P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That
>>>>>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly
>>>>>> isn't recognizing them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
>>>>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>>>>
>>>> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify
>>>> which non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your
>>>> allegedly "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases
>>>> wrong, but it doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>    incorrect input
>>> else
>>>    correct input.
>>
>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>
>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>
>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>
>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>
>
> If H can detect that it gets the wrong answer then it can return the
> opposite answer which is also wrong because the input is defined to
> contradict whatever H returns. H returns -1 for incorrect input.

Which is STILL a wrong answer, just an admission that it can't get the
right answer.

P(P) will still either Halt or not, so -1 is the wrong answer.

If H does answer -1, then another Halt decider can return the right
answer for P(P), and thus we show that the question "Does P(P) Halt when
run?" has a proper answer so H is just wrong.

Also, as I explained, your current H is unable to properly detect this,
as it will be even MORE wrong for the other 3 variations of H^ that ARE
IN FACT answerable by H if it was smarter.

>
>
>>>> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.
>>>>
>>>> And you still haven't answered my question:
>>>>
>>>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>>>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P)
>>> never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are merely a
>>> liar.
>>
>> That doesn't answer my question. Given that P(P) meets the definition
>> of halting, how can you claim it is *not* halting?
>
> As I have said far too many times seeming to prove that you are only a
> liar on this issue the verifiable fact that the pure simulation of the
> input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state proves that it
> never halts.

No. As you have shown, the Pure Simulation UTM(P,P) does halt if H(P,P)
returns non-halting (or if it is modified to halt also for this new -1
return).

The case that you MEAN to say is that there does not exist a version of
H for which H(H^,H^) (the H^ being based on the H) will simulate to a
Halting State, but since each case here is a DIFFERENT H^, all this
proves is that no H can positively prove that H^ is a Halting
Computation, and thus get a correct answer. This does NOT prove that any
of the H^s are non-halting. In fact, we can prove that ANY H^ based on
an H that return non-halting for H(H^,H^) will Halt, showing H to be wrong.

>
>> The definition of halting makes no mention of pure simulations, so the
>> above isn't an answer.
>>
>> And it is not definitely true that a pure simulation of P(P) never
>> halts since, by definition, a pure simulation behaves in the same was
>> as the actual computation. If PURESIMULATION(P, P) doesn't behave in
>> the same way as P(P), then it isn't really a pure simulation.
>>
>> André
>>
>
>

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19008&group=comp.theory#19008

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:1305:: with SMTP id e5mr18919290qtj.350.1627378957337;
Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ed08:: with SMTP id k8mr1770567ybh.494.1627378957133;
Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 02:42:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:f42a:8c53:ed93:3ee8;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:f42a:8c53:ed93:3ee8
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org> <eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com> <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com> <dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me> <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me> <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_
[_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:42:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Malcolm McLean - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:42 UTC

On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
> >
> >
> > I have explained this totally several times now.
> > if H(P,P) != P(P)
> > incorrect input
> > else
> > correct input.
> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>
> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>
> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>
> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>
We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
P(P) halts has been modified.
Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is "pathological".
The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.

There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
with the UK that attracts intelligent students). The suggestion is to detect
the Linz input and special case it.

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider

<sdopjn$164k$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19009&group=comp.theory#19009

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!XHGCo5bqYLkMQpewNWKdqA.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: anw...@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:10:47 +0100
Organization: Not very much
Message-ID: <sdopjn$164k$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<sdckqo$cm8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87a6mehx5q.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdfbv2$14bi$2@gioia.aioe.org> <875yx0he2s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdffqm$jsh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87zgucfux4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me> <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<raOdnaoHSN1b7WD9nZ2dnUU78bfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87im0yeagy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdm509$1mci$1@news.muc.de>
<87v94xb4ea.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<02e7360c-8a87-45da-a4f2-0d667170a692n@googlegroups.com>
<87pmv5b3ql.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<36217ea8-a443-4068-a7e3-941d82c2530bn@googlegroups.com>
<87eeblb0qh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdmq77$6fu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<sdmruo$bam$1@dont-email.me> <878s1tapvq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdn36o$vp2$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39060"; posting-host="XHGCo5bqYLkMQpewNWKdqA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Andy Walker - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:10 UTC

On 26/07/2021 20:42, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 12:31 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>> The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most
>>> universities, both public and private.

Well, it depends what you mean by "CS programs". Ben and I
were talking about [the paucity of] full honours degrees in CS --
IOW, 18yos arriving at university, doing CS full time from day 1,
and graduating three years later having done little else but CS
for the duration. That's much harder to set up and run than what
"most universities" in the UK did, which was to tack elements of
CS onto maths/engineering/... degrees, as components of those
degrees, as conversion courses, or as postgrad diplomas. So CS
programs of some sort or other were common in the UK; full CS
degree courses were rarer. See also below.

[...]
>>> I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe
>>> that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression
>>> from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on
>>> there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that
>>> certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart
>>> guys.

The UK and Europe were perfectly well advanced in computing,
in terms of hardware, languages, research, ...; in many ways, ahead
of the USA. The USA tended to buy IBM and throw money around; the
rest of the world had to be more ingenious.

>> I'm not sure what you've taken from the thread that suggests some sort
>> of late entry.  Your impression is that the UK was well on the way, but
>> I'm not sure where to, so I can't confirm or deny.  I don't think the UK
>> was noticeably behind the curve in CS education.

Indeed.

> Well there were comments about lack of textbooks, emphasis on problem
> solving (implied not theory), comment on not "a whole honours
> degree", etc. It sounded like a description of a program that wasn't
> well started yet. I believed otherwise. Yes computers were expensive
> and many institutions hadn't decided whether CS was primarily an
> extension of EE, mathematics, both, or neither (not really an
> academic area). However, the world as a whole was on its merry way
> and CS was well established by the middle-late 1970s. That seemed
> fairly clear to others and myself on this side of the pond. Perhaps I
> misread the inner intent of some of the comments in this thread that
> made me think some of you thought otherwise.
A full honours program running in Autumn 1979 would have
had to be advertised from Autumn 1978, else you would have no or
very few applicants. So you would have to spend the academic year
1977-78 at the latest devising syllabuses, getting regulations
through relevant academic bodies, sorting out staff and equipment,
etc, and this process would have to be in someone's mind in 1976-77.
To set the time frame -- that's just about when Unix started to
spread in universities. That was the first catalyst for letting
students somewhat loose on real computers; instead of a mainframe
being used 24/7 for research, you have one or more relatively cheap
minis with source available for compilers, OS, ...; you have discs
and terminals, editors and word-processing. The second catalyst
was the ready availability shortly afterwards of personal computers
and micros, and then inter-computer communication.

IOW, any full course [again, as opposed to things like
"maths with computing" degrees or "NA and computing diplomas" or
similar] already running in the mid-late 1970s would have been
very constrained; within a very few years, it was much easier to
run interesting/useful courses.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Galos

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider

<sdov9q$1tl0$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19010&group=comp.theory#19010

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!ywU7Put/2XN3YyEvNrSzbQ.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: peterxpe...@hotmail.com (Peter)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:47:54 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sdov9q$1tl0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <875yx0he2s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdffqm$jsh$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87zgucfux4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me> <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<raOdnaoHSN1b7WD9nZ2dnUU78bfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87im0yeagy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdm509$1mci$1@news.muc.de>
<87v94xb4ea.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<02e7360c-8a87-45da-a4f2-0d667170a692n@googlegroups.com>
<87pmv5b3ql.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<36217ea8-a443-4068-a7e3-941d82c2530bn@googlegroups.com>
<87eeblb0qh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sdmq77$6fu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<sdmruo$bam$1@dont-email.me> <878s1tapvq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sdn36o$vp2$1@dont-email.me> <sdnakg$1nig$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87wnpcadjz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="63136"; posting-host="ywU7Put/2XN3YyEvNrSzbQ.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.8.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Peter - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:47 UTC

Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> In my day there was something called a conversion MSc. If one had a
>> first degree in a numerate subject (1st or 2.2, probably) one could

"2.2" should have been "2.1".

>> take an MSc in computing that did not presuppose any first degree
>> exposure to computing. Do they still exist? Where they (or are they)
>> a good idea?
>
> I think they are much less common than they used to be, but I note with
> some pride that the one I used to run is still going

Respec'!

> . I think it was
> the second one started in the UK, after Cambridge's diploma course.
> Obviously I think they are (or at least were) a very good idea, but then
> I am clearly biased.
>
> From the other side, the students were great -- motivated and
> enthusiastic with a ride range of prior experience. We admitted
> students fresh out of an undergraduate degree as well as many with
> significant careers already under their belts. And we would often take
> a punt on good students with unusual degrees and/or backgrounds.
>
> Such courses were usually a full calendar year, with the summer taken up
> with a significant (supervised) dissertation. You can fit a lot into a
> full 12 month course. (I always hated the "you have the summer off"
> myth of academia.)
>

--
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here
Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]

<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19012&group=comp.theory#19012

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:24:53 -0500
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malcolm_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com> <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com> <dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me> <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me> <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me> <d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:24:52 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 92
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xLBjLSM2TJPspFa7pczVZ0t9EnY1GbVRgxK4ChWMrcBJczCknbCMVkha3/wlSiRStBaeO8wnKFVd7le!7SX/bBsDs2osMt1oGQbNucUi9E6VO4ruJU9XIbFyLuvJCEvydYqEobfVtzAFqz6L8CTHa51pAw==
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: 6120
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:24 UTC

On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>> incorrect input
>>> else
>>> correct input.
>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>
>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>
>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>
>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>
> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
> P(P) halts has been modified.
> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is "pathological".
> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>
> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).

No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.

Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.

Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.

When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1

When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0

When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)

We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox in
that both Boolean values are contradicted.

When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.

Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.

This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.

Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P of
int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.

Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that int
main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.

> The suggestion is to detect
> the Linz input and special case it.
>

I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.

Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input reaches a
final state and the halt decider reports that this input never halts are
the self-contradictory input pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
error cases.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ]

<m-mdnbJOsMVhuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19013&group=comp.theory#19013

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:27:56 -0500
Subject: Re:_Black_box_halt_decider_is_NOT_a_partial_decider_[_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com> <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com> <dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me> <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me> <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me> <GuWdnf1GJdSME2L9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo3sg$fb6$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 10:27:56 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdo3sg$fb6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <m-mdnbJOsMVhuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 128
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3GZhEo2OvLvTSjsx0sLutw4LZJ2dAqrfmxOeeKpIGHdDUxIfRWwJjTilacNKGAAx2pOFrTO0qZ2gGvo!KI3NKDa4qCHG8u2hvs4YObq84OY0AvlipfLcxB0o4gtE8eDWqit/YHlxanjKPkQByuJiu8Nyrg==
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: 7315
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:27 UTC

On 7/26/2021 11:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 22:39, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/26/2021 10:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say
>>>>>>> 'the answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour
>>>>>>> of P(P).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples.
>>>>>>> That your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine
>>>>>>> certainly isn't recognizing them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's
>>>>>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify
>>>>> which non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your
>>>>> allegedly "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases
>>>>> wrong, but it doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>    incorrect input
>>>> else
>>>>    correct input.
>>>
>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>
> I really wish you'd answer this. Better yet, just stop writing in
> pseudo-math and state what you mean in English so we don't constantly
> have to guess.
>
>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>
>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>
>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this
>>> wrong (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>
>>
>> If H can detect that it gets the wrong answer then it can return the
>> opposite answer which is also wrong because the input is defined to
>> contradict whatever H returns. H returns -1 for incorrect input.
>
> But HOW can H detect that it gets the wrong answer? To do that it would
> need to include a halt decider which CORRECTLY decides that P(P) is
> halting so that it can compare the result of that decider with its own
> answer. Do you have such a decider? I assume not, or you would have used
> it in the first place.
>
> And halt deciders either accept an input as halting, or reject it as
> non-halting. There isn't a third '-1' option for a halt decider as the
> term is used in computational theory or in the Linz or Sipser proofs.
>
> Plus you're now contradicting your repeated claim that H(P, P) == 0. If
> H(P, P) returns -1, what happens inside of P when its copy of H returns -1?
>
>>
>>>>> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you still haven't answered my question:
>>>>>
>>>>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>>>>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to
>>>> H(P,P) never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are
>>>> merely a liar.
>>>
>>> That doesn't answer my question. Given that P(P) meets the definition
>>> of halting, how can you claim it is *not* halting?
>>
>> As I have said far too many times seeming to prove that you are only a
>> liar on this issue the verifiable fact that the pure simulation of the
>> input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state proves that it
>> never halts.
>
> And as I pointed out, the definition of halting refers *only* to the
> behaviour of P(P), not to anything which occurs inside some simulator,
> pure or otherwise. P(P) clearly meets that definition.
>
> If there is some definition involving pure simulations it is yours and
> yours alone and does not correspond to the accepted meaning of
> 'halting'. By the accepted meaning P(P) unambiguously halts. Any claim
> to the contrary is simply WRONG.
>
> André

I addressed all of these points in my reply to someone that actually
cares about the truth, see my reply to Malcolm.

>
>>> The definition of halting makes no mention of pure simulations, so
>>> the above isn't an answer.
>>>
>>> And it is not definitely true that a pure simulation of P(P) never
>>> halts since, by definition, a pure simulation behaves in the same was
>>> as the actual computation. If PURESIMULATION(P, P) doesn't behave in
>>> the same way as P(P), then it isn't really a pure simulation.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]

<x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19015&group=comp.theory#19015

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx47.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 253
Message-ID: <x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.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: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 08:54:05 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 12335
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:54 UTC

On 7/27/21 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>> incorrect input
>>>> else
>>>> correct input.
>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>
>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>
>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>
>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>
>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>> "pathological".
>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>
>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it?  Ben said that
>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>
> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
> nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.

Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows
that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H
that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.

>
> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.

(Maybe YOU should start citing sources for your 'obvious' claims)

On 4/27/21 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
Message-ID: <Teudndbu59GVBBr9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
> u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
> if (Input_Halts)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
>
> int main()
> {
> H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);
> }
>
>
> _H_Hat()
> [00000b98](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000b99](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>
[00000b9b](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000b9c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000b9f](01) 50 push eax
> [00000ba0](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000ba3](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000ba4](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> [00000ba9](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000bac](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00000baf](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [00000bb3](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> [00000bb5](02) ebfe jmp 00000bb5
> [00000bb7](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> [00000bb9](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bba](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00000bba]
>
> _main()
> [00000bc8](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000bc9](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000bcb](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> [00000bd0](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> [00000bd5](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> [00000bd8](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [00000bda](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bdb](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0020) [00000bdb]
>
> ===============================
> ...[00000bc8][001015d4][00000000](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000bc9][001015d4][00000000](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000bcb][001015d0][00000b98](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> ...[00000bd0][001015cc][00000bd5](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> ...[00000b98][001015c8][001015d4](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][001015c4][00000000](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][001015c4][00000000](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][001015c0][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][001015c0][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][001015bc][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][001015b8][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b98
> ...[00000b98][00211674][00211678](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][00211674][00211678](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][00211670][00201644](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][00211670][00201644](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0021166c][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0021166c][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][00211668][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][00211664][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> ...[00000b98][0025c09c][0025c0a0](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][0025c09c][0025c0a0](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][0025c098][0024c06c](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][0025c098][0024c06c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0025c094][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0025c094][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][0025c090][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][0025c08c][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

Above decision was from the call the Halts inside H_Hat, deciding that
H_Hat(H_Hat) seems to be non-halting, it then returns that answer and is
processed below:

> ...[00000ba9][001015c4][00000000](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> ...[00000bac][001015c4][00000000](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> ...[00000baf][001015c4][00000000](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> ...[00000bb3][001015c4][00000000](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> ...[00000bb7][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> ...[00000bb9][001015cc][00000bd5](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bba][001015d0][00000b98](01) c3 ret
> ...[00000bd5][001015d4][00000000](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> ...[00000bd8][001015d4][00000000](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> ...[00000bda][001015d8][00100000](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bdb][001015dc][00000098](01) c3 ret

SEE IT HALTED!

> Number_of_User_Instructions(39)
> Number of Instructions Executed(26567)

Since P(P) is shown to be Halting, any accurate simulation of P(P) will,
by definition, Halt.

Your error is that you start to argue about a DIFFERENT question,

>
> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.

>
> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
>
> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>
> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)

I.E. H was wrong.

>
> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox in
> that both Boolean values are contradicted.

Wrong. The question is "Does the Machine H^(H^) Halt when run, for a
GIVEN H?" That question has a specific unique answer, so it is NOT the
liar paradox.

If H(P,P) == 0, the then answer to the question is that H^(H^) does
Halt, and a different Halt decider could give this answer.

The fact that H can't give the answer is NOT a Liar's paradox, because
the Halting Problem Question is NOT What can H return to be right, but
what does H^ do for given H^ machine (which implies a given H)

>
> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.

And that is a DIFFERENT set of machines for which H is wrong because
that H never returns an answer for H(P,P).

>
> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.

Right, the TEMPLATE H^ is constructed so that

>
> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying )

<zqudnWgUwtJds538nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19016&group=comp.theory#19016

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:05:20 -0500
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_](_finally_quit_lying_)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:05:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zqudnWgUwtJds538nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 54
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e77EbUWeMu+Zdwdh+lx/YL5BN2ylQEtmBjCj/PvzHda3/SNsWfQac31Bqh6kQ+USrwd7d/S1tdwK0P1!Wh1ASAROOdEHh7mKwdHRe2DtmnONWAtvtIiXyFQkqJWUvbKlFFaULXmB/9nIwPIRip7YtTcYDA==
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: 4577
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:05 UTC

On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/27/21 8:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>> incorrect input
>>>>> else
>>>>> correct input.
>>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>>
>>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>>
>>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>>
>>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>>
>>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
>>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>>> "pathological".
>>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>>
>>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it?  Ben said that
>>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
>>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>>
>> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
>> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
>> nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.
>
> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows
> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H
> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.
>
Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have
finally quit lying about this key issue.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying )

<SvWLI.16512$qL.7415@fx14.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19018&group=comp.theory#19018

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!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!fx14.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_](_finally_quit_lying_)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.iad>
<zqudnWgUwtJds538nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <zqudnWgUwtJds538nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <SvWLI.16512$qL.7415@fx14.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: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 09:29:37 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 3720
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:29 UTC

On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows
>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H
>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.
>>
> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have
> finally quit lying about this key issue.
>

Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is
non-halting.

The fact that UTM(P,P) does Halt, as does P(P) as a top level machine,
shows that it IS Halting.

If you claim that you have proved that Halting is non-halting, what you
have actually proved is your logic system is inconsistent.

What you have actually proved is that, for your form of H, that no H can
actually PROVE that P(P) is Halting. Note, this doesn't mean that P(P)
isn't non-halting, just that you can't prove it this way.

You haven't proved that your logic is correct, and in fact I have
pointed out many time the flaw in it. You logic presumes that H will
NEVER abort its simulation, and then you have H abort its simulation,
thus giving your logic a false premise and thus the logic is UNSOUND.

Implied in your argument you weave the FALSE assumption that all truth
can be proved, and that there must exist an H that gets the answer of
H(H^,H^) correct. These are FALSE assumptions, even if you hold them
dear. It was established a century ago that these ideas don't hold in
logic systems that can handle the logic of Mathematics.

If you can't handle that TRUTH, stay out of Mathematics. Stay in the
realm of finite first order logic where you can keep to that type of logic.

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder )

<JP2dncfyZIvLoJ38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19019&group=comp.theory#19019

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:07:34 -0500
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malcolm_](_attention_deficit_disorder_)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me> <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me> <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me> <d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com> <m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.iad> <zqudnWgUwtJds538nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <SvWLI.16512$qL.7415@fx14.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:07:33 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <SvWLI.16512$qL.7415@fx14.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <JP2dncfyZIvLoJ38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 45
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HT0TdD5vZVpOcbMpgx7t7k0k09udpZ9qhSvsyn8mwDKUGFiqOOCrZup0A8DiJS4Z6xgADYwuG8mxGGt!uol8UoH80WvbDbzwHfioiobJ0aLl8S3WT66ENt8XHt6g1HsQ7qOJ0Z6zMcZWbmnNv9jtRtijKg==
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: 3951
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:07 UTC

On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows
>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H
>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.
>>>
>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have
>> finally quit lying about this key issue.
>>
>
> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is
> non-halting.
>

That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing
the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at
least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words
that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect.

Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times
over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of
my words is incorrect.

I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you
are simply a God damned liar.

When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible
verse:

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

"God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell.
Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is>
love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]

<sdpf12$ij8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19020&group=comp.theory#19020

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:16:16 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <sdpf12$ij8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:16:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5247ba9ac8ecc9d9899cddbca3bf31e2";
logging-data="19048"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MoMnkZApBc/DtZDGADmqG"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zSrqS1rzSKyRnK4fxmVZSeZag7k=
In-Reply-To: <m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:16 UTC

On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>> incorrect input
>>>> else
>>>> correct input.
>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>
>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>
>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>
>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>
>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>> "pathological".
>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>
>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it?  Ben said that
>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>
> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
> nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.
>
> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>
> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>
> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1

What exactly is the 'global simulator'?

You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but according
to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.

And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of P(P)
doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a 'global
simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global' simulator and a
'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one and not in the other?

> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>
> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>
> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox in
> that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>
> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.

Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P) doesn't
match H(P,P), or that the value returned by P(P) does not equal the
value returned by H(P, P)? [The equation means the latter, but I still
suspect you mean the former, but you refuse to clarify].

> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.
>
> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.
>
> Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
> still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P of
> int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.
>
> Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that int
> main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.
>
>> The suggestion is to detect
>> the Linz input and special case it.
>>
>
> I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
> H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
> state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.

But a human can only recognize this discrepancy in cases where they can
shown that P(P) actually halts despite what H(P, P) does. How do you get
a Turing Machine to do this? That requires a Halt Detector which is
actually always correct to get the real answer to whether P(P) halts,
and currently your Halt Decider gets this wrong. So you're begging the
question here -- the approach requires an *accurate* universal halt
decider, which is exactly the thing you've been trying, but failing to
prove is possible despite the fact that it is know to be impossible.

André

> Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
> would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input reaches a
> final state and the halt decider reports that this input never halts are
> the self-contradictory input pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
> error cases.
>
>

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

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]

<sdpfb9$mkg$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19021&group=comp.theory#19021

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_]
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:21:43 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <sdpfb9$mkg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com>
<87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:21:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b2a8b99b9e09bca445ca27cab4dd1631";
logging-data="23184"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+8YhfG0YElEldPr7IpsWenckqRVthHqwg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fO4BEzIdB1pzlXC5D+RgqsXwW80=
In-Reply-To: <m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Jeff Barnett - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:21 UTC

On 7/27/2021 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:

<SNIP>

> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
> nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.

I'm glad to see you have something to take pride in. However, lets make
sure we all know what that accomplishment really is: You have set a
world record in number of wrong conclusions reached by a record long
chain of improper inferences. You have also set a world record for
turning a deaf ear to all of those trying-to-help people who have
pointed out the mistakes at each and every step.

I have not cut the set of newsgroups this message will reach: I think
all will rejoice at your success and hope you will retire into silence.
Should we contact Guinness? Or will you take care of that?

Alright everyone, lets hear a loud cheer for PO!
--
Jeff Barnett

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]

<d46dnQp1b-ua3p38nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19022&group=comp.theory#19022

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:31:50 -0500
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_]
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc> <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com>
<dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me>
<g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me>
<_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me>
<ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me>
<IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me>
<QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me>
<tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me>
<PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me>
<zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdpf12$ij8$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:31:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdpf12$ij8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <d46dnQp1b-ua3p38nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 132
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UB4or1JGzYOC+ypLYaPXy7I7uvS0ATP2D37gYanRp3JZteSmSpbiV8W8p7L7sDNlYxg93bUSN49yK3w!cugR26HDOpvc23B0vvvNkTauaNryRXI5gbpnwGWjQaLA2orSYHgYJ1BwxkKl/La05/dshRxjMg==
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: 7910
X-Received-Bytes: 8089
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:31 UTC

On 7/27/2021 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>> incorrect input
>>>>> else
>>>>> correct input.
>>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>>
>>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>>
>>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>>
>>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>>
>>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
>>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>>> "pathological".
>>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>>
>>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it?  Ben said that
>>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
>>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>>
>> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
>> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
>> nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.
>>
>> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>>
>> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
>> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
>> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>>
>> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
>> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
>
> What exactly is the 'global simulator'?
>
> You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but according
> to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.
>
> And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of P(P)
> doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a 'global
> simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global' simulator and a
> 'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one and not in the other?
>
>> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
>> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>>
>> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>>
>> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox
>> in that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>>
>> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
>> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.
>
> Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P) doesn't
> match H(P,P),

Since I already totally explained this immediately above and your
question is entirely based on your simply not bothering to pay attention
this is the only reply that I will make to your reply.

> or that the value returned by P(P) does not equal the
> value returned by H(P, P)? [The equation means the latter, but I still
> suspect you mean the former, but you refuse to clarify].
>
>> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.
>>
>> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.
>>
>> Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
>> still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P of
>> int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.
>>
>> Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that
>> int main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.
>>
>>> The suggestion is to detect
>>> the Linz input and special case it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
>> H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
>> state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.
>
> But a human can only recognize this discrepancy in cases where they can
> shown that P(P) actually halts despite what H(P, P) does. How do you get
> a Turing Machine to do this? That requires a Halt Detector which is
> actually always correct to get the real answer to whether P(P) halts,
> and currently your Halt Decider gets this wrong. So you're begging the
> question here -- the approach requires an *accurate* universal halt
> decider, which is exactly the thing you've been trying, but failing to
> prove is possible despite the fact that it is know to be impossible.
>
> André
>
>> Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
>> would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input reaches
>> a final state and the halt decider reports that this input never halts
>> are the self-contradictory input pathological self-reference(Olcott
>> 2004) error cases.
>>
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder )

<i5YLI.77117$VU3.11059@fx46.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19026&group=comp.theory#19026

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.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!fx46.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_](_attention_deficit_disorder_)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me> <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me> <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.iad>
<zqudnWgUwtJds538nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SvWLI.16512$qL.7415@fx14.iad>
<JP2dncfyZIvLoJ38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <JP2dncfyZIvLoJ38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <i5YLI.77117$VU3.11059@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: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:17:49 -0700
X-Received-Bytes: 6496
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:17 UTC

On 7/27/21 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows
>>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H
>>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.
>>>>
>>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have
>>> finally quit lying about this key issue.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is
>> non-halting.
>>
>
> That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing
> the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at
> least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words
> that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect.
>
> Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times
> over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of
> my words is incorrect.
>
> I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you
> are simply a God damned liar.
>
> When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible
> verse:
>
> Revelation 21:8 KJV
> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
> and brimstone: which is the second death.
>
> "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell.
> Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is>
> love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side.
>

Since you have been shown guilty of lying, I would be careful about your
condenmation of lying.

First, I HAVE read the words you have written, and understand them. I
can not say the same for you.

I Have pointed out your errors, in detail. You response is merely to
restate you point and to say that I obviously don't understand what you
are saying.

The question that H MUST be answering if you want it to it applicable to
the Halting theory as discussed by Linz or Sipser, is "Does the Machine
P(I), which is given as a representation to H, when run as the machine
P(I), reach its final halting state in a finite number of steps, or does
it not reach such a state in any finite number of steps?"

For H^, the answer to H^(H^), built on an H that return the answer to
H(H^,H^) that H^(H^) is a non-halting computation, is that H^(H^) will
DEFINITELY Halt.

Even you have shown this.

The fact that H does a pure simulation of H^ (called P) for some number
of steps doesn't show that H^(H^) is non-halting, as it simulated that
computation for too few steps.

The fact that for NO H, can H(H^,H^) (for the H^ built on that H) ever
reach a halting state doesn't actually prove anything except that NO H
can prove that its H^(H^) halts. The fact that it can't prove it doesn't
mean it doesn't, as, per are discussion above, for ANY H that aborts it
simulation and returns a non-halting answer, we can show that its H^(H^)
does Halt.

Also, for ANY H that doesn't abort its simulation, that H fails to
return an answer to H(H^,H^) so that fact that these H^(H^) are
non-halting doesn't matter, as their H still failed to be a correct
decider by not answering.

All your arguments have been fatally flawed by being filled with
incorrect premises, including but not limited to:

1) That All Truth is Provable (this is a valid basis for limited forms
of logic, but does not apply to the realm of Mathematics of the Natura
Numbers).

2) That there must be an H that can get the right answer (the fallicy of
assuming the anticentant).

3) That you can analyze H^ independent of the H that deciding it. (H^ is
SPECIFICALLY a function of H, so EVERYTIME you change the behavior of H,
you get a different H^, which you are now calling P to hide that fact).

4) That H can be both a pure simulator and a decider that aborts its
simulation. (Something that is X until it does Y isn't really an X)

5) That you can replace the trace of a simulation with the trace of the
simulated machine in a case where the simulator might not be a pure
simulator for all time.

ALL of these are fatal flaws in your argument.

You just assume them, but have NEVER proved any of these.

This makes your logic UNSOUND.

The fact that you have been repeatedly told this but you still do it,
makes YOU UNSOUND.

Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder )

<7sudnSjP-u48zZ38nZ2dnUU7-XXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19027&group=comp.theory#19027

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:29:53 -0500
Subject: Re:_André_doesn't_know_Rice's_Theorem_[_Malc
olm_](_attention_deficit_disorder_)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210719214640.00000dfc@reddwarf.jmc>
<sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> <IYGdnV9avtZj0mL9nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnjhs$30s$1@dont-email.me> <QNOdnRIn-O3-xmL9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnn91$k7p$1@dont-email.me> <tbGdnZb32okl_GL9nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnrb7$al5$1@dont-email.me> <PMCdnSCWQLiK5mL9nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdnua6$n7p$1@dont-email.me> <zPudnUgsAvKV42L9nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sdo03c$uid$1@dont-email.me>
<d619424f-35d7-4fc2-bc33-d4b0bdb57966n@googlegroups.com>
<m-mdnbNOsMXYuJ38nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<x_VLI.64834$h8.24317@fx47.iad>
<zqudnWgUwtJds538nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SvWLI.16512$qL.7415@fx14.iad>
<JP2dncfyZIvLoJ38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i5YLI.77117$VU3.11059@fx46.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:29:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i5YLI.77117$VU3.11059@fx46.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <7sudnSjP-u48zZ38nZ2dnUU7-XXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 61
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QDcBH90+FyHAvYeUTfTJ+AdrUHZoVNn5Hgy6d62O9gQF9UvCk5uwAlsqSQzrJK35zXVPK6uUvORouHJ!qPmGopDjPzZ85/7yz+cPQUQrDHMi70s1pV29FKxvu85bQm5wqRZ/vojWprQK4pqhN+ALW0lw2A==
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: 4607
X-Received-Bytes: 4786
 by: olcott - Tue, 27 Jul 2021 18:29 UTC

On 7/27/2021 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/27/21 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows
>>>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H
>>>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>>>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have
>>>> finally quit lying about this key issue.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is
>>> non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing
>> the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at
>> least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words
>> that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect.
>>
>> Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times
>> over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of
>> my words is incorrect.
>>
>> I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you
>> are simply a God damned liar.
>>
>> When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible
>> verse:
>>
>> Revelation 21:8 KJV
>> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
>> and brimstone: which is the second death.
>>
>> "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell.
>> Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is>
>> love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side.
>>
>
> Since you have been shown guilty of lying, I would be careful about your
> condenmation of lying.
>

I have never been shown guilty of lying.

> First, I HAVE read the words you have written, and understand them. I
> can not say the same for you.
*Then you would acknowledge rather than contradict these words*
I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
final state while H remains in pure simulation mode

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Pages:123456789101112131415161718192021
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor