Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Joy is wealth and love is the legal tender of the soul." -- Robert G. Ingersoll


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

SubjectAuthor
* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ keyolcott
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |+* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    || `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |  `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |     `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |   |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |       |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |         `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |          +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |          `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |           `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Dennis Bush
    |   |        |    |            | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | | +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            | |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |             +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    |   |        |    |             `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |              `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |               `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |                `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |                 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Andy Walker
    `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)

<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30200&group=comp.theory#30200

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:05:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:05:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 208
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NKKpVu5NQnnamGVeCElJTTViIe7RIaya/f8wLwCJDILxJ9f8fUQoVn8KpagaAoAQxpxm4xOdthFLa6w!BZ5sTo5HtQUmTAaBq7/ONhlkw7sS1M0ws5v9QOEuxchDwQzIMrsFKHQml36vvuESNb1pDKBcFXdM
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: 13014
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:05 UTC

On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>> didn't do it.
>>>
>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>
> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the universe
can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting.


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

<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30201&group=comp.theory#30201

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:caa:b0:441:2e8f:f398 with SMTP id s10-20020a0562140caa00b004412e8ff398mr1440127qvs.61.1649902465663;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:84:b0:63d:4a3d:eb5 with SMTP id
h4-20020a056902008400b0063d4a3d0eb5mr290244ybs.145.1649902465468; Wed, 13 Apr
2022 19:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilre1mdq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com> <B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com> <B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com> <6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:14:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 293
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:14 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect..
> >>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>> didn't do it.
> >>>
> >>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >
> > No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting


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

<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30202&group=comp.theory#30202

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:28:47 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:28:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 187
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kSpZ+06L9fvjiisdQ3Xt+m34GLiZ8pMiJmiorEskCuwkTdSHlGFjrfJBRJgwgTe068DT7u66IrwGvBL!KAmdCWqbffShCjO0RdLghmi+00ToCQeuOCHqCU3Okd7FH2am5lk9ttjkqUvff7dEzrf6/zCCp7a6
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: 12563
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:28 UTC

On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>
>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>
> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates


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

<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30203&group=comp.theory#30203

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:54a:0:b0:69a:f10c:f533 with SMTP id 71-20020a37054a000000b0069af10cf533mr363106qkf.525.1649903569701;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:113:b0:2eb:543d:e2c0 with SMTP id
bd19-20020a05690c011300b002eb543de2c0mr420824ywb.20.1649903569475; Wed, 13
Apr 2022 19:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:32:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 253
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:32 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting.. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >>>
> >>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >
> > Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> Liar


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

<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30204&group=comp.theory#30204

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:34:29 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:34:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 194
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-rMJzkzgoRHyRxoqnVsjd0JnVdbEUmZyAgdN5TuQ1d/CQ2t8YJGAMprBBz6tgiIDoxBQVRQOr7N+DHUP!ejGzdche/T8x6vDi6i/iiJ7W0f9CFxCWl/R9XMMSGt7+JcFi5+hG7v/wTJaPNdRzzFoDMzd4e+Iw
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: 13151
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:34 UTC

On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>
>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>> Liar
>
> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.


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

<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30205&group=comp.theory#30205

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:240f:b0:445:d728:dd49 with SMTP id fv15-20020a056214240f00b00445d728dd49mr8644289qvb.118.1649903797955;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b92:0:b0:641:d7cc:8ee1 with SMTP id
140-20020a250b92000000b00641d7cc8ee1mr359531ybl.243.1649903797768; Wed, 13
Apr 2022 19:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com> <B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com> <B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com> <6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:36:37 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 255
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:36 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts.. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input..
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >>>
> >>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> >> Liar
> >
> > I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.


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

<aUL5K.419981$iK66.160131@fx46.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30206&group=comp.theory#30206

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx46.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<RMSdner36c4WBcj_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmllzu1o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKCdnbIuwpBeucv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r161yc4k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<SOCdnSd2u9iercv_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a1492fc2-e3a0-4705-a644-67a779283c87n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 301
Message-ID: <aUL5K.419981$iK66.160131@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: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:44:22 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15517
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:44 UTC

On 4/13/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this
>>>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that
>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know
>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired
>>>>>>>> result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a
>>>>>>>> confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to
>>>>>>>>> meet the
>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever
>>>>>>>>> it enters
>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a
>>>>>>>> turing machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE
>>>>>>>>> IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of
>>>>>>>> halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition
>>>>>>>> of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong
>>>>>> because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill
>>>>> Jones
>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>
>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>
>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)


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

<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30207&group=comp.theory#30207

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:48:18 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:48:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 199
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-FtNY9+ci03GwWBI+qSyIJys6loq/6PdbyByT587WTgf6oGFRH7OhCkqdHkjBod2yobpWJkTqrrLQS75!fBh5PGkLaqXS2Sl3+R9SM1D6mFc6XPAJKGdg5GHpCTIi3il5SzEJTV5fqTMUSnJKPRJ951XvdMur
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: 13795
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:48 UTC

On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>> Liar
>>>
>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>
> Still no explanation.
>


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

<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30208&group=comp.theory#30208

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2aa9:b0:443:d8d3:5b77 with SMTP id js9-20020a0562142aa900b00443d8d35b77mr1569696qvb.85.1649904648999;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b984:0:b0:629:6b2a:8328 with SMTP id
r4-20020a25b984000000b006296b2a8328mr409978ybg.112.1649904648776; Wed, 13 Apr
2022 19:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 19:50:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com> <B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com> <6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com> <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:50:48 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 295
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:50 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> >>>> Liar
> >>>
> >>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
> >> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
> >
> > Still no explanation.
> >
> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?


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

<_0M5K.735425$oF2.284226@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30209&group=comp.theory#30209

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<B6-dnWVCiaSXpsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d9ce1dfc-945b-4197-bba2-e8a5ae44d2f7n@googlegroups.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 254
Message-ID: <_0M5K.735425$oF2.284226@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:53:44 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 14540
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:53 UTC

On 4/13/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head
>>>>>>>>>>>>> game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your
>>>>>>>>>>>> desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>> MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that
>>>>>>>>>>>> same definition of halting. So that along shows that your
>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me
>>>>>>>>>> wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the
>>>>>>>>>> last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because
>>>>>>>>> Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>
>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>> Liar
>>
>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>
> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>


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

<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30210&group=comp.theory#30210

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:55:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:55:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 201
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-AwFQI9vINZtrNzqmA9fAIDl+HVTEEcQsVNBJb/+/mUjIoLu0cCMkdksyINPZgZ1P/2A+UfslpHth4nR!kClfIzASc9IyVxKe3XnyC1lW1+l+rllTAeekV4T5zVzX5lyNzGUNkMWns0CeE1rQiUILy24tKTXd
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: 14363
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 02:55 UTC

On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>
>>> Still no explanation.
>>>
>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>
> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
Liar !


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

<Z7M5K.76405$Kdf.60225@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30211&group=comp.theory#30211

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<B6-dnWdCiaQBocv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 270
Message-ID: <Z7M5K.76405$Kdf.60225@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:01:12 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15795
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:01 UTC

On 4/13/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that same definition of halting. So that along shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the
>>>>>>>>>>>> last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because
>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>> Liar
>>>>
>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>
>> Still no explanation.
>>
>
> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>
>


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

<x9M5K.76406$Kdf.42969@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30212&group=comp.theory#30212

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <x9M5K.76406$Kdf.42969@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:02:54 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2095
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:02 UTC

On 4/13/22 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> Liar !
>
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

You know that abuse of copyright can negate your ability to claim
copyright infringement?

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

<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30213&group=comp.theory#30213

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:578b:0:b0:2e2:324a:7b6c with SMTP id v11-20020ac8578b000000b002e2324a7b6cmr353468qta.267.1649905381457;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:2485:0:b0:2ec:354d:d45a with SMTP id
k127-20020a812485000000b002ec354dd45amr443657ywk.213.1649905381264; Wed, 13
Apr 2022 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cc64dd09-58a8-433f-84a0-18c8de69d2adn@googlegroups.com> <6dadnWhpJLZNo8v_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com> <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com> <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:03:01 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 311
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:03 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity..
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> >>>>>> Liar
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
> >>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
> >>>
> >>> Still no explanation.
> >>>
> >> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
> >> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
> >
> > It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
> Liar !


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

<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30214&group=comp.theory#30214

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:05:45 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:05:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="60b38ce27d3b9f90ea7dc414435233a4";
logging-data="14132"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LWAIcblX0qFE/Im0IFimP"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8hB2ErsQxoNlxfaxa+LZFh6pIR0=
In-Reply-To: <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:05 UTC

On 2022-04-11 18:52, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>
>>> _P()
>>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax      // push P
>>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
>>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>>
>>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>>
>> But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it has
>> the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator).
> I will provide more detail for you.

Are you going to provide these details, or would it be easier for you to
simply admit that the above trace is fabricated and/or a trace of a
completely different program from the one you have described?

André

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

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

<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30215&group=comp.theory#30215

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:07:54 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:07:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 211
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mFg6sIF9dCctmbz2AmA5W02HwMGNQoqIEUwm6zz7/uz40bk1zQsiWZTYNaZ9WfHv9SPefxzTjeICYaH!7Yy6u/f1ECupFpjdjClBeHn3YrfJTMkEmvegdK4st8BavWqbG80ccvP2ceT6rzEM6UthaMbgr4Bx
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: 15105
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:07 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>
>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>> Liar !
>
> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.


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

<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30216&group=comp.theory#30216

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:21a4:b0:444:51fb:aee8 with SMTP id t4-20020a05621421a400b0044451fbaee8mr1598433qvc.71.1649905786181;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:32c3:0:b0:641:4d40:3065 with SMTP id
y186-20020a2532c3000000b006414d403065mr368244yby.403.1649905785992; Wed, 13
Apr 2022 20:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<34affdf1-82b7-4a20-ac56-3727c2bb7298n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaGclv9E3cv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com> <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com> <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com> <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:09:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 292
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:09 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> >>>>>>>> Liar
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
> >>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still no explanation.
> >>>>>
> >>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
> >>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
> >>>
> >>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
> >> Liar !
> >
> > This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
> Is it fun being a liar?


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

<mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30217&group=comp.theory#30217

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:10:21 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:10:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 36
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Y7vf6H3PgFjIqGfbU0SQSvamvkdnHip7elnBQZLxES6r3FJA617+pdeewunucM61o30G3sGd0BtWn1S!IvlFOZ2u4sfJfVHqzndtxizBJ9hZy9KHDgy2kYH6mewPEEDKftoBOVRLjEfGAXUoyjauN9FdcxJ1
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: 3655
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:10 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-11 18:52, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>
>>>> _P()
>>>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax      // push P
>>>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
>>>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>>>
>>>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>>>
>>> But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it
>>> has the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator).
>> I will provide more detail for you.
>
>
> Are you going to provide these details,

I should have said I will provide more detail by adding comments to the
code above. I did do this Push P, Push P call H is a "c" call to H.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30218&group=comp.theory#30218

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:13:58 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:13:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com>
<VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 218
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-4ztzLwt1Y6IeG9+F1xjQnpqv2duxuVdmtYsvEuCkAy9SVmVFYXiQdPVGoAzm82eAHzCIKzGf7y8hmyh!Bk3ji5Ug54Fdnkm+zQFm49ku6ElX9jJPNBGvPkuFQN1jW3PFdABcUZ8mirBPM+1xiLiTdrXN+/go
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: 15874
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:13 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>>> Liar !
>>>
>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>> Is it fun being a liar?
>
> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>
I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.


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

<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30219&group=comp.theory#30219

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5dcf:0:b0:2e1:baf1:502d with SMTP id e15-20020ac85dcf000000b002e1baf1502dmr368186qtx.635.1649906196609;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ed46:0:b0:2eb:4513:3f4 with SMTP id
w67-20020a0ded46000000b002eb451303f4mr510761ywe.134.1649906196406; Wed, 13
Apr 2022 20:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<56a4a4e6-3f50-44da-a20a-a8bef276c085n@googlegroups.com> <VMqdnaCclv-m38v_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com> <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com> <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com> <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com> <bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:16:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 332
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:16 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> >>>>>>>>>> Liar
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
> >>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Still no explanation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
> >>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
> >>>> Liar !
> >>>
> >>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
> >> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
> >> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
> >> Is it fun being a liar?
> >
> > You're really struggling with this aren't you?
> >
> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>
> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
> can't fool me about what you don't understand.


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

<v_-dnfVAderHCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30220&group=comp.theory#30220

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:26:18 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:26:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <v_-dnfVAderHCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 252
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-G1henDzaCqVWz9YazWM/gsosnLZNihFanhxODdjE3oCQmV2ki5s4UZW/whvbVTW/ROkOhSNA4FVnfW3!X1h1dRHYdtWhh2Xq69tGGAK1IFwxwcGQPbb2Q1n77Erh9eWCZeH62xIS+ESo5bZcYrv56LxOEdyL
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: 17447
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:26 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>
>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>
>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>
>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>
>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>
> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>
>
> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>
> _P()
> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> //The above returns false
> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>
> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input


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

<v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30221&group=comp.theory#30221

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:27:41 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:27:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com>
<E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 251
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-GeUYZI+t2hp7Jm+3sGcT/zZHuBU0V3+V1VW0oxWWEnprFe4jlHo0n/EGeD0NUbCbEsmcIVD0qQd7sk9!BCb6DrYBZcifqn9Xqea0Oe85ruaTyRW77ExLjJCHhW5dni1Hp8EbuG9kzvpv6iYFg7SIbPLLPDd7
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: 17475
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:27 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>
>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>
>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>
>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>
>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>
> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>
>
> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>
> _P()
> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> //The above returns false
> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>
> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input so
> both are answering the exact same question but get different results,


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

<ca64aa02-662a-4cb4-b528-da2109066335n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30222&group=comp.theory#30222

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4cc4:0:b0:2ee:bc5a:a7da with SMTP id l4-20020ac84cc4000000b002eebc5aa7damr424888qtv.382.1649907205613;
Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:7b43:0:b0:2ec:8bb:3aef with SMTP id
w64-20020a817b43000000b002ec08bb3aefmr520708ywc.267.1649907205403; Wed, 13
Apr 2022 20:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 20:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b71feb06-986c-41ad-9d9c-d25bb9cb12cen@googlegroups.com> <E-2dnVtqXuBi2cv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com> <TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com> <I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com> <_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com> <36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com> <mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com> <bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com> <v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ca64aa02-662a-4cb4-b528-da2109066335n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:33:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 370
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:33 UTC

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
> >>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
> >>>>>> Liar !
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
> >>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
> >>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
> >>>> Is it fun being a liar?
> >>>
> >>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
> >>>
> >> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar..
> >>
> >> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
> >> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
> >
> > Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
> >
> >
> > The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
> >
> > _P()
> > [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> > [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> > [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> > [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> > //The above returns false
> > [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> > [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> > [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> > [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> > [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> > // Hb reaches the final state of its input
> >
> > Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input so
> > both are answering the exact same question but get different results,
> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
> we know it is non-halting.


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

<LIM5K.18083$O01.8403@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30223&group=comp.theory#30223

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me> <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t3832d$dpk$1@dont-email.me> <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <mdSdnSArnKkADcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <LIM5K.18083$O01.8403@fx33.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:40:28 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3470
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:40 UTC

On 4/13/22 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 10:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 18:52, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its
>>>>> [00000970] machine address, no waffle there merely an easily
>>>>> verified fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> _P()
>>>>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax      // push P
>>>>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
>>>>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>>>>
>>>>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>>>>
>>>> But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it
>>>> has the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator).
>>> I will provide more detail for you.
>>
>>
>> Are you going to provide these details,
>
> I should have said I will provide more detail by adding comments to the
> code above. I did do this Push P, Push P call H is a "c" call to H.
>
>

Which are the prototypical worthless comments of a junior programmer.

You still haven't explained how you get around the actual issues pointed
out.

FAIL.

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

<ieidnfSoTfZdCsr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30224&group=comp.theory#30224

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:40:48 -0500
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 22:40:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ] H(P,P)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<04ecb792-c7df-4e86-988b-f49c1cf50432n@googlegroups.com>
<TvqdnSWvLfIZHMr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
<v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ca64aa02-662a-4cb4-b528-da2109066335n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ca64aa02-662a-4cb4-b528-da2109066335n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ieidnfSoTfZdCsr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 291
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Xm3Wt4vWRt055UglbwkhZH+4VoGlVe2ZnY5wG1L4wmeaWP92VoDKxaPrsY0gwbvYi8OkwSoy0qf9qiv!68jV970O/AHclwg49m/EEuZYfQ1LmgkrTo2Hxtw1sMZvt/Vuuaq5O1Cm6MfgYPuhzJHKSjcWcvuU
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: 19543
 by: olcott - Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:40 UTC

On 4/13/2022 10:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
>>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>>>
>>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>>>
>>>
>>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>>>
>>> _P()
>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>> //The above returns false
>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>>
>>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input so
>>> both are answering the exact same question but get different results,
>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
>> we know it is non-halting.
>
> You just keep repeating with no explanation that H(P,P)==false is correct. I explain it detail why it's not.
>
> Hb demonstrates that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) i.e. (P,P) DOES halt. So find an error:
>
> _P()
> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
> //The above returns false
> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor