Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: What if a cat barks?

SubjectAuthor
* What if a cat barks?olcott
+* Re: What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|+* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||+- Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||`* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
|| `* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||  `* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||   `* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||    `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||     `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||      +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||      |`- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||      `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
||       `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
||        `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
||         `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||          `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||           `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteChris M. Thomasson
||            |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteJeff Barnett
||            | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | | |+- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | | |`- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteChris M. Thomasson
||            | | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | | | `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | |  `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | | |   `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | | |    `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | |     `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chaiolcott
||            | | +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||             `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
| `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  |`- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
+- Re: What if a cat barks? [ How can a cat bark? ]olcott
+- Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
`* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
 `* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
  `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
   `* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
    `* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
     `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
      +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
      `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
       `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
        `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
         `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
          `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
           `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
            `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
             `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
              `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
               `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 `- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer

Pages:123456
Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6672&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6672

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 22:07:02 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <satao3$gjk$1@dont-email.me> <YuOdnXMSQcOgqk_9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <savr2l$b1i$1@dont-email.me> <48GdnbWRNeocCU79nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me> <6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 22:07:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 166
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NVW8ZUJW/umaTqkW3OWEIiEP5/bwShBrsMhGlIv0U2y4b6WGXcDZCGcCRtIe5pUApHOfjxZlHUj146T!zuyzak9Xy2lse6etZrTkaST5+LvvJYTZ0Ggj/M5kKVcYsZkz49jBwTLUG95adDc0qO4WpnuerOM=
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: 8577
 by: olcott - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 03:07 UTC

On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create a P
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically creating
>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>> and can't use it to for anything logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>> results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>> then a
>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of this
>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>> does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
>>>>>>>>> (Hn), P
>>>>>>>>> will result in infinite recursion,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the set of
>>>>>>>> encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort the
>>>>>>>> simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this input
>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHY?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has been
>>>>> explained many times.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand that
>>>> they are necessarily correct.
>>>
>>> I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain meaning
>>> is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the simulator
>>> simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
>>> simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated can
>>> be corrected decided as non-Halting.
>>>
>>> An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then it is
>>> correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.
>>>
>>> This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and only if
>>> P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
>>> trivially proven.
>>>
>>> Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
>>> included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
>>> the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as even
>>> you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
>>> correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.
>>>
>>> Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
>>> answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be correct,
>>> but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since even
>>>>> you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end and
>>>>> halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
>>>>> DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't need to
>>>>> abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
>>>> specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite execution
>>>> of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all possible
>>>> doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.
>>>
>>> WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it knows
>>> at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when we run
>>> P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
>>> (since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
>>> infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
>>> answer to it and that P can then Halt.
>>
>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>
>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>
>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>
>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>
>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>
>> Now I have told this this several hundred times.
>>
>>
>
> WRONG.
>
> P(P) starts.
>
> Calls H(P,P)
>
> H starts the simulation.
>
> H simulates P starting
>
> H simulates P calling H
>
> H simulates H starting its simulation
>
> H simulates H simulating P starting
>
> H simulates H simulating P calling H
>
> The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution
>
> THe first H aborts its simulation
>
> The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller
>
> P then Halts
>
> Showing P is a Halting Computation.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6673&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6673

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: chris.m....@gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 01:11:32 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YuOdnXMSQcOgqk_9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <savr2l$b1i$1@dont-email.me>
<48GdnbWRNeocCU79nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me>
<6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me>
<kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Chris M. Thomasson - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 08:11 UTC

On 6/25/2021 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create
>>>>>>>>>>>> a P
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically creating
>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>> and can't use it to for anything logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>> results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>> then a
>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of this
>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>> does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
>>>>>>>>>> (Hn), P
>>>>>>>>>> will result in infinite recursion,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the set of
>>>>>>>>> encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this
>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHY?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
>>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has been
>>>>>> explained many times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand that
>>>>> they are necessarily correct.
>>>>
>>>> I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain
>>>> meaning
>>>> is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the simulator
>>>> simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
>>>> simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated
>>>> can
>>>> be corrected decided as non-Halting.
>>>>
>>>> An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then it is
>>>> correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.
>>>>
>>>> This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and only if
>>>> P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
>>>> trivially proven.
>>>>
>>>> Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
>>>> included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
>>>> the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as even
>>>> you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
>>>> correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
>>>> answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be
>>>> correct,
>>>> but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since even
>>>>>> you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end and
>>>>>> halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
>>>>>> DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
>>>>> specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite
>>>>> execution
>>>>> of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all possible
>>>>> doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it knows
>>>> at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when we run
>>>> P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
>>>> (since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
>>>> infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
>>>> answer to it and that P can then Halt.
>>>
>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>
>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>
>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>
>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>
>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>
>>> Now I have told this this several hundred times.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> WRONG.
>>
>> P(P) starts.
>>
>> Calls H(P,P)
>>
>> H starts the simulation.
>>
>> H simulates P starting
>>
>> H simulates P calling H
>>
>> H simulates H starting its simulation
>>
>> H simulates H simulating P starting
>>
>> H simulates H simulating P calling H
>>
>> The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution
>>
>> THe first H aborts its simulation
>>
>> The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller
>>
>> P then Halts
>>
>> Showing P is a Halting Computation.
>
> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
> otherwise P never ever halts.
>
> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
> otherwise P never ever halts.
>
> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
> otherwise P never ever halts.
>
> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
> otherwise P never ever halts.
>
> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
> otherwise P never ever halts.
>

Are you nuts, or are recovering from a recent head injury?

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6674&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6674

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 04:27:46 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<savr2l$b1i$1@dont-email.me> <48GdnbWRNeocCU79nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me> <6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e9c7321294248fa202b95a5291ecd3fd";
logging-data="1597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196Ey9KsmFxJlziSXTXVFnqwmtxvh2U8sE="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C40TnPGThAD0WGnqCxp9kepsDD0=
In-Reply-To: <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Jeff Barnett - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:27 UTC

On 6/26/2021 2:11 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/25/2021 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> create a P
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and can't use it to for anything logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>> results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> then a
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>> does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
>>>>>>>>>>> (Hn), P
>>>>>>>>>>> will result in infinite recursion,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the set of
>>>>>>>>>> encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do
>>>>>>>>>> abort the
>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this
>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHY?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its
>>>>>>>> simulation is
>>>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has been
>>>>>>> explained many times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand that
>>>>>> they are necessarily correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the simulator
>>>>> simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
>>>>> simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being
>>>>> simulated can
>>>>> be corrected decided as non-Halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then
>>>>> it is
>>>>> correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.
>>>>>
>>>>> This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and
>>>>> only if
>>>>> P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
>>>>> trivially proven.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
>>>>> included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
>>>>> the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as
>>>>> even
>>>>> you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
>>>>> correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
>>>>> answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be
>>>>> correct,
>>>>> but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end and
>>>>>>> halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
>>>>>>> DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
>>>>>> specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> execution
>>>>>> of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all possible
>>>>>> doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it knows
>>>>> at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when we
>>>>> run
>>>>> P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
>>>>> (since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
>>>>> infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
>>>>> answer to it and that P can then Halt.
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on
>>>> its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on
>>>> its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on
>>>> its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on
>>>> its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on
>>>> its
>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>
>>>> Now I have told this this several hundred times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG.
>>>
>>> P(P) starts.
>>>
>>> Calls H(P,P)
>>>
>>> H starts the simulation.
>>>
>>> H simulates P starting
>>>
>>> H simulates P calling H
>>>
>>> H simulates H starting its simulation
>>>
>>> H simulates H simulating P starting
>>>
>>> H simulates H simulating P calling H
>>>
>>> The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution
>>>
>>> THe first H aborts its simulation
>>>
>>> The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller
>>>
>>> P then Halts
>>>
>>> Showing P is a Halting Computation.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>
>
> Are you nuts, or are recovering from a recent head injury?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(Ben lies)

<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6677&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6677

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:52:23 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(Ben lies)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:52:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 52
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dYjzR/RG364koZMWCNXOEj98MVjjbD5GQgn6wpO2Mc4hdenqqIhPJTyUwmOvyX+5qCW9LJCIQi1JgOR!7MrNDVqMb/zp1KYZewavDhQMz6y+fh0eGnvFqVKi13v4m8nlcgGsPIyHKiI1DC4emCC3BeIAstM=
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: 4042
 by: olcott - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 15:52 UTC

On 6/26/2021 9:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> I've trimmed the newsgroups. I suggest everyone else does so as well.
> There is no need to damage more than one group with this junk.
>
> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/26/2021 2:11 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> Are you nuts, or are recovering from a recent head injury?
>>
>> It's not recent. It seems he's been at it for a few decades.
>
> I first cam across PO when he was about to get rich selling some
> software based on two junk patents he'd filed. The software was vapour
> ware (at the time) but the expectation of riches was real enough. The
> situation may be reversed now.
>
> I appear to have first talked about halting with PO in 2012. I had a
> look at one of the replies I made back then. See how predictable it all
> is:
>
> "You see? No connection to what I said. No discussion. Just a
> re-statement of the same false claim. Should I state, yet again, why
> it's false? Is there any reason to think you'd address the argument
> if I did so?"
>
> That's a shade off 20 years ago. It really is futile.
>

On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one its infinite
chain of invocations is aborted.

You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable
fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts

On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
> will result in infinite recursion,

So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that
there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<gdednWgWttxi00r9nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6678&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6678

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6b82:: with SMTP id n2mr17476314wrx.206.1624723205298;
Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.128.87.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:59:59 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me> <6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZmDBI.855721$nn2.135856@fx48.iad>
<e4qdnS-e7YZgokr9nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UnHBI.259012$Ms7.25415@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 11:00:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <UnHBI.259012$Ms7.25415@fx34.iad>
Message-ID: <gdednWgWttxi00r9nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 223
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3eyzG1vlgCyVvFoNrlawOaIxNqKm08VaDVGPiTmXORy/m/E4b03vOLPgXnQ8tC5WKAvvpq9UKxLxEaE!hqYMvKUVG8uNvRzTs1nNmZHlIrSP8n/tE5xTmKkpRexaGRCdUX8CrfSyJ9ejfD94a5x6T+oMDwM=
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: 10568
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
 by: olcott - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:00 UTC

On 6/26/2021 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/21 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/25/21 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and can't use it to for anything logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Hn), P
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will result in infinite recursion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>> encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this
>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WHY?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its
>>>>>>>>>> simulation is
>>>>>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as
>>>>>>>>>> true on
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> explained many times.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> they are necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain
>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>> is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the
>>>>>>> simulator
>>>>>>> simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
>>>>>>> simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> be corrected decided as non-Halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and
>>>>>>> only if
>>>>>>> P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
>>>>>>> trivially proven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
>>>>>>> included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
>>>>>>> the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
>>>>>>> correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
>>>>>>> answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be
>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>> but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't
>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>> abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
>>>>>>>> specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite
>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>> of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it
>>>>>>> knows
>>>>>>> at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when
>>>>>>> we run
>>>>>>> P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
>>>>>>> (since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
>>>>>>> infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
>>>>>>> answer to it and that P can then Halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>> on its
>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>> on its
>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>> on its
>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>> on its
>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>> on its
>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I have told this this several hundred times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> P(P) starts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Calls H(P,P)
>>>>>
>>>>> H starts the simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> H simulates P starting
>>>>>
>>>>> H simulates P calling H
>>>>>
>>>>> H simulates H starting its simulation
>>>>>
>>>>> H simulates H simulating P starting
>>>>>
>>>>> H simulates H simulating P calling H
>>>>>
>>>>> The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution
>>>>>
>>>>> THe first H aborts its simulation
>>>>>
>>>>> The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller
>>>>>
>>>>> P then Halts
>>>>>
>>>>> Showing P is a Halting Computation.
>>>>
>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>
>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>
>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>
>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>
>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, P halts because the H it contains terminated the simulation of
>>> another copy of its description.
>>>
>>> YOUR problem is that you think that actually means something, it doesn't
>>>
>>
>> Whenever one invocation of the infinite invocation chain of infinite
>> recursion is aborted the whole chain terminates.
>
> WRONG, if the aborting is occurring inside the chain, which it is in
> this case.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<xsGdncLAk9R6yEr9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6679&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6679

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 11:29:26 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZmDBI.855721$nn2.135856@fx48.iad>
<e4qdnS-e7YZgokr9nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UnHBI.259012$Ms7.25415@fx34.iad>
<gdednWgWttxi00r9nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<boIBI.69083$8O4.49240@fx16.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 11:29:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <boIBI.69083$8O4.49240@fx16.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xsGdncLAk9R6yEr9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 249
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ZD2rGA5QAglo8OFn0ad5mLRknQTKuxVrOwXngqN7ZjTJ4dSs0DBgYqb7OSaN2WHyrVTc+uJQK/3V4Ai!cg6Gc82/hd5eyJ6H1i0XilNOd/XC/8JUQgWHO9YSGdDc09+gr8p5HKxJbpi7Jnl41kG25BRLICA=
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: 11746
 by: olcott - Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:29 UTC

On 6/26/2021 11:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/21 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/21 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/21 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and can't use it to for anything logical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Hn), P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will result in infinite recursion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHY?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as
>>>>>>>>>>>> true on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the meaning of its words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has
>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>> explained many times.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> they are necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain
>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>> is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the
>>>>>>>>> simulator
>>>>>>>>> simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
>>>>>>>>> simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being
>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be corrected decided as non-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then
>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>> correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and
>>>>>>>>> only if
>>>>>>>>> P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that
>>>>>>>>> statement is
>>>>>>>>> trivially proven.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
>>>>>>>>> included in P and that included copy needs to abort the
>>>>>>>>> simulation of
>>>>>>>>> the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
>>>>>>>>> correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to
>>>>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>>>> answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be
>>>>>>>>> correct,
>>>>>>>>> but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus
>>>>>>>>>>> is BY
>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>> abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
>>>>>>>>>> specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite
>>>>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>>>> of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all
>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>> doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it
>>>>>>>>> knows
>>>>>>>>> at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when
>>>>>>>>> we run
>>>>>>>>> P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
>>>>>>>>> (since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
>>>>>>>>> infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
>>>>>>>>> answer to it and that P can then Halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>>>> on its
>>>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>>>> on its
>>>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>>>> on its
>>>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>>>> on its
>>>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
>>>>>>>> on its
>>>>>>>> third invocation of H(P,P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now I have told this this several hundred times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P(P) starts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Calls H(P,P)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H starts the simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H simulates P starting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H simulates P calling H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H simulates H starting its simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H simulates H simulating P starting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H simulates H simulating P calling H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite
>>>>>>> execution
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THe first H aborts its simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P then Halts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Showing P is a Halting Computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
>>>>>> otherwise P never ever halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, P halts because the H it contains terminated the simulation of
>>>>> another copy of its description.
>>>>>
>>>>> YOUR problem is that you think that actually means something, it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whenever one invocation of the infinite invocation chain of infinite
>>>> recursion is aborted the whole chain terminates.
>>>
>>> WRONG, if the aborting is occurring inside the chain, which it is in
>>> this case.
>>>
>>
>> In the computation int main() { P(P); } If no P ever halts unless some H
>> aborts some P this proves beyond all possible doubt that P(P) specifies
>> an infinitely recursive chain of invocations.
>>
>> That it took me so long to find these words proves that I am a
>> relatively terrible communicator. On the other hand these words do
>> unequivocally validate that my logic was correct all along.
>>
>
> But if your H does answer the question H(P,P) then the P DOES Halt,


Click here to read the complete article
Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)

<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6683&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6683

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:01:40 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:01:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 36
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-qJaKrVzbdRt3GEuT7JmrzGaDgNXtMwDeIDd7sc0Lp7RYuXc2Ib0Nv/tqeUEKZYT4SvGYbNGqhMZLl7W!6/xTPa6mXPYw1Zi/5ppcZHINRoPGKFwSBdKRIR7lkizniUHjgoKjrdr2j53nixHaaZWTkT4yLgU=
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: 3322
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 00:01 UTC

On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>
>> On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:
>>
>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
>
> I did not quote you saying that 2006. That attribution line is a lie.
>

I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable
reasoning that proves that I am correct.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable
fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts:

On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
> will result in infinite recursion,

So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that
there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)

<be-dndHQ27uMVkr9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6684&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6684

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:49:21 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:49:21 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <be-dndHQ27uMVkr9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DWAAWoySrs5rxdsMitK+FbmsXNovjoNMo0bcCjKYJm2VqtqtygOPotO4N4Mt7mHy1k5uPJSTnUCnhEa!Rby48kXAJA6Q+2ilb0tr0GUk97bgggRZSKUyqJp2FDAH96f9xQ+pWpEH84v0+4zWztv/YxPDWls=
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: 3856
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 00:49 UTC

On 6/26/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
>>> I did not quote you saying that 2006. That attribution line is a lie.
>>>
>>
>> I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
>> knucklehead. It was not 2012.
>
> I know. I was point out that your attribution line was a lie. You
> probably have no idea what that means having only used Usenet for a few
> decades.
>

Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.

I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable
fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts:

On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
> will result in infinite recursion,

So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that
there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)

<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6685&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6685

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:54:37 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(knucklehead)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:54:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hgOp87OnkSYzTPPphUrLSGcA8R7NmtPe+KFWlA4OPUTrgk44dl785vlwhI7UD/BWoJpLVWaMvGK42mQ!NStMJ3PfHmitcDuWc03b0Q6nygz7f+1nKxjB6vUS1NTLkbHEA32srPBb45dmk2F4qkjzNXcBbQE=
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: 3587
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 00:54 UTC

On 6/26/2021 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/21 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
>>>
>>> I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.
>>>
>>
>> I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
>> knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable
>> reasoning that proves that I am correct.
>>
>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
>> infinite chain of invocations is aborted.
>
> Yes, If H will never abort its P, then THAT P will be non-halting.
>
> Problem is
That you do not understand that when one invocation of the connected
chain of invocations of infinite recursion int main(){ P(P); }

is aborted thus forcing the whole chain to halt, this does not mean that
int main(){ P(P); } does not specify a chain of infinite invocations.

Everyone here that is proficient at software engineering knows that I am
correct about this.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)

<EOOdnZSMpbpwU0r9nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6686&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6686

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:05:49 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <60ca2e77-1c6b-4415-9c74-5a6e73e8d391n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:05:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <60ca2e77-1c6b-4415-9c74-5a6e73e8d391n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <EOOdnZSMpbpwU0r9nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-don7VO4vjYcuUXwT/C4I3HX3ErkkTWxvzcDXRGsgEIJ6Myv0Wj2+TnOR3ZRW3Wa/8Kx+nTigfqrzr0Q!6T0TcUPEVHR6K8KI7VJvGVnH9517MYqJTD13E6OtplQSkIj1d9s7tspc21TeypAq7/O7VQcKejA=
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: 3513
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:05 UTC

On 6/26/2021 7:48 PM, Daniel Pehoushek wrote:
> -I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
> -knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable
> how can someone care so much about others opinions?

I must first make my point understood by continual improvement of the
words of this point. I can only do this through trial-and-error with
feedback.

Six months ago I had no way to clearly explain exactly why H(P,P)==0 is
correct even though P(P) halts. I now have an irrefutable way to clearly
explain this.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

Try reading the whole paper, if you are the author that you claim to be
you should have the capacity to understand that it is correct, even
though the form of this paper is not nearly in the ballpark of academic
journal quality. Far too many people rank style over substance.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<EOOdnZeMpboXUkr9nZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6687&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6687

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:08:26 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <iDOBI.61670$k_.32646@fx43.iad> <KoKdnY2XsbfgX0r9nZ2dnUU7-SHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <LVPBI.259251$Ms7.201536@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:08:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <LVPBI.259251$Ms7.201536@fx34.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <EOOdnZeMpboXUkr9nZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dDImlD4Ds5pEwHm2Cvy76XTgXOlHj194fIub/bbYqSVCXSdgS02M+6vc5IUfOypNFETkKrcrqpdBMq2!BzPKXtSS53L7/p7amau2uPD2HHcJBHluccVAb5ROhh5ZnGWcfc0A8E31CGuM1OEsrXD6HkjS7JE=
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: 3924
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:08 UTC

On 6/26/2021 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/21 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>
>>> I don't spend 'that much' time at it, his comments are easy to rebut,
>>> and I just check when I have spare time.
>>>
>>> It also is a bit of mental exercise to keep things fit.
>>>
>>> Although, I will admit sometimes feel a bit bad about fighting against
>>> an unarmed man in the battle of wits.
>>>
>>> He does have doggedly determined down pat though.
>>>
>>
>> A not quite genius can out perform profoundly brilliant geniuses on a
>> specific task such as the halting problem when 10,000-fold more time and
>> effort is applied. By going over all the details enormously more times
>> than anyone else has patience for, details that were never noticed
>> before are uncovered.
>
> Firing blanks again.
>
> You have proved NOTHING.
Pearls before swine.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

This proves beyond all doubt that P(P) specifies a computation that does
not halt.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6688&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6688

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:39:38 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad> <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:39:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 84
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LKKc/y5pNaW3hrEw2qMnHPR6zyvyQJy8EOLB/riSOp1gZX/txcOZi9ITBKSPKHRZJLe0DRp30iJ+MY6!yTOoRDWwSyRkba5pA8TTqs2x0KI4djdIvdYL8BIN0U1FG3I6wL5Ijf7OF90t9sPaPLXAisxpLnE=
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: 5190
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:39 UTC

On 6/26/2021 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/21 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/21 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
>>>> knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable
>>>> reasoning that proves that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
>>>> infinite chain of invocations is aborted.
>>>
>>> Yes, If H will never abort its P, then THAT P will be non-halting.
>>>
>>> Problem is
>> That you do not understand that when one invocation of the connected
>> chain of invocations of infinite recursion int main(){ P(P); }
>>
>> is aborted thus forcing the whole chain to halt, this does not mean that
>> int main(){ P(P); } does not specify a chain of infinite invocations.
>>
>> Everyone here that is proficient at software engineering knows that I am
>> correct about this.
>>
>
> You say this, but refuse to answer the question of when this happens,
> what happens to the execution path of the halt decider that made this
> decision?
>

As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we
know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input
never halts.

> Remember, in this case, you have dectect the loop that includes BOTH P
> and H in the loop. Thus this H is PART of the infinite chain that you
> claim as ALL gone.
>
> Did you machine just blow up?
>
> Did it just abort the whole program?
>
> Answer this for me, what actually happens.
>

As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we
know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input
never halts.

This is correct and true no matter what else.

> And then, what does this mean as the behavior of the actual Turing
> Machine this is supposed to be the equivalent of?
> > I don't think you have an answer for this, as once you define what
> happens here, we can show how that answer shows you machine was wrong.
>

As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we
know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input
never halts.

This is correct and true no matter what else.

If X > Y && Y > Z then X > Z

We don't even need to know what X, Y, and Z are
and we don't need to know the criterion measure of >.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)

<5PudnZb1TYI0R0r9nZ2dnUU7-fHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6689&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6689

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:55:53 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <be-dndHQ27uMVkr9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <CkQBI.30842$e21.11398@fx02.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:55:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CkQBI.30842$e21.11398@fx02.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5PudnZb1TYI0R0r9nZ2dnUU7-fHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UwIM/KbxMWeK/XNHUQO7KFIVTVXu/+BwYarNzcfoffuGTU8wTOH1xbKDNWEHWno4G9XRaQw2WLgHwZA!lw8W3TxmbHZjFIaioRIhqtvdCK63XEf4617tcaABXSj7Ha6ZJ0NWi2zUbS6INhriSGc3RwgoHHk=
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: 4760
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:55 UTC

On 6/26/2021 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/21 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
>>>>> I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
>>>> knucklehead. It was not 2012.
>>>
>>> I know.  I was point out that your attribution line was a lie.  You
>>> probably have no idea what that means having only used Usenet for a few
>>> decades.
>>>
>>
>> Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
>> Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
>> Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
>
>
> Olcott is the emperor of the dishonest dodge, never answering the tough
> questions put to him to acutally explain what he is saying,
>
>>
>> I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
>> I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
>> I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
>>
>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
>> infinite chain of invocations is aborted.
>>
>> You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable
>> fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts:
>>
>> On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
>>> will result in infinite recursion,
>>
>> So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that
>> there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.
>>
>
> The error is a confusion of same named machines.
>

int Factorial(int n)
{ if (n > 1)
return n * Factorial(n - 1);
else
return 1;
}

That is not the way that recursion works.

void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

When P called with the machine address of P invokes simulating halt
decider H(P,P) P is invoking its own machine address in the same way
that Factorial is invoking its own machine address.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)

<sb8ppn$18an$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6690&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6690

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: chris.m....@gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(I dare you)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:03:19 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <sb8ppn$18an$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<be-dndHQ27uMVkr9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Chris M. Thomasson - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 03:03 UTC

On 6/26/2021 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
>>>> I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
>>> knucklehead. It was not 2012.
>>
>> I know.  I was point out that your attribution line was a lie.  You
>> probably have no idea what that means having only used Usenet for a few
>> decades.
>>
>
> Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
> Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
> Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
>
> I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
> I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
> I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
[...]

Oh my! Wow, you really are nuts!? I am not a frequent commentator on
your numerous nonsense threads, but wow. There are a lot of people that
are trying their best to help you, big time! Why do you mock and insult
them...? Wow!

;^/

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )

<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6691&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6691

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 09:43:50 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 09:43:51 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RBmeHDwBKO0mDchTRUf2yF1abrVSsAgDbxL+UgqTPnY9dLXcZB0JyM33b+hJ712kQDOXxaQlelUfTz/!h6TJ8GTwSUMRs7WivRB70+TDPJKg0WOX0AC4LGDRsfeFnDDZHxp4APHNVuqk+gqCfOfD3gp0jZA=
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: 4572
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:43 UTC

On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/21 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/21 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/21 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a
>>>>>>> lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
>>>>>> knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the
>>>>>> irrefutable
>>>>>> reasoning that proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
>>>>>> infinite chain of invocations is aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, If H will never abort its P, then THAT P will be non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Problem is
>>>> That you do not understand that when one invocation of the connected
>>>> chain of invocations of infinite recursion int main(){ P(P); }
>>>>
>>>> is aborted thus forcing the whole chain to halt, this does not mean that
>>>> int main(){ P(P); } does not specify a chain of infinite invocations.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone here that is proficient at software engineering knows that I am
>>>> correct about this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You say this, but refuse to answer the question of when this happens,
>>> what happens to the execution path of the halt decider that made this
>>> decision?
>>>
>>
>> As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we
>> know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input
>> never halts.
>
>
> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".

An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )

<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6692&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6692

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:00:42 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad> <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad> <n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad> <zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:00:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mXqRuWKP6HvbsXcLtRqh7wxewifWlpDlSa37ur8b8tjeGJvU1wXhXOcUtVIhVKwMqE9EkIMwnDX+YfW!MAKMaJ+Nq/kOtnR+/gZp5NET0+rNFaSt3Wzwv0o8mhI0TNTP/mxRnC7GZSnMXfNjFlZ2tinIQ+Q=
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: 3662
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:00 UTC

On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>
>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>
>
> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
> the Halting behavior of program B.
>
> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>

That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.

int Factorial(int n)
{ if (n > 1)
return n * Factorial(n - 1);
else
return 1;
}

> This is what you forget.
>
> Remember, you are using the Halting Problem defined for Turing Machines,
> so you need to work under the rules of Turing Machines, and that means
> that machine P includes ALL the code that is part of its algorithm,
> which includes the H that it is built on.

I am only talking about the C/x86 version of H/P nitwit.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6693&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6693

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng comp.lang.c
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:56:15 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:56:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 63
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lqUUeF0Zpap4QaxZ/7iYFDLaolIxBVXFxIYdHEPQ/qMsH44/aNM9vKCnngqIcoGyYCI4ilgVu+ZD8Zm!bqPbAaaU2oC1sZtb8ATOs4cbxs8JYDKrTunAa+DKA/qgpdgnI38/YiAoTQWD/5+GPus0+zZVj6Q=
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: 4692
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:56 UTC

On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>
>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>
>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>
>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler
>> leaves
>> in its wake.
>>
>
> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the seagulls
> didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>
> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
> roof at the break of dawn...
>
> Mike.
>

It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the
conventional halting problem counter-examples.

The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does
not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in
providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
rebuttals were incorrect.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6694&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6694

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:04:19 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad> <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad> <n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad> <zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad> <xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:04:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 94
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2YI8npj8scahwWxSvX/W1zV2PbIcOGFhK0ZyG1C1yBbjc/yZbUEPtjVASFMxZvhZvSlrcNtB+3RGJmG!D29p5xPs2aMaFE0OnzVpCxiu/yLIMNwGPFOJbIZji0/00z89ClhND78sSE9sDDfijE1ZSDUPl+Y=
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: 6004
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:04 UTC

On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>
>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>
>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>
>>
>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
> different H's

That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
behavior to infinite recursion.

void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

_P()
[00000b25](01) 55 push ebp
[00000b26](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000b28](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b29](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b2c](01) 50 push eax
[00000b2d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000b30](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b31](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
[00000b36](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000b39](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00000b3c](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00000b40](02) 7402 jz 00000b44
[00000b42](02) ebfe jmp 00000b42
[00000b44](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000b46](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000b47](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00000b47]

Columns
(1) Machine address of instruction
(2) Machine address of top of stack
(3) Value of top of stack after instruction executed
(4) Machine language bytes
(5) Assembly language text
===============================
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b25
....[00000b25][002116fe][00211702](01) 55 push ebp
....[00000b26][002116fe][00211702](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00000b28][002116fa][002016ce](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b29][002116fa][002016ce](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00000b2c][002116f6][00000b25](01) 50 push eax
....[00000b2d][002116f6][00000b25](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[00000b30][002116f2][00000b25](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b31][002116ee][00000b36](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
....[00000b25][0025c126][0025c12a](01) 55 push ebp
....[00000b26][0025c126][0025c12a](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00000b28][0025c122][0024c0f6](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b29][0025c122][0024c0f6](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00000b2c][0025c11e][00000b25](01) 50 push eax
....[00000b2d][0025c11e][00000b25](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[00000b30][0025c11a][00000b25](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b31][0025c116][00000b36](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6695&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6695

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6da9:: with SMTP id u9mr14487917wrs.46.1624832800873;
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.128.88.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:26:35 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:26:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 138
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lkleE1bBoTm3F3ZEtt1+/vyPUsuIudio/ZjDnOSbmSgrflSFmtYJS5MnGmF/TRVc1olX+DU3+akSa3o!763cAU2cIhGDNciRux3sAGrJka8968xL0mlny46mY5Zhr3qWlRibi+hpC4AD4bZyncpQemW6ygU=
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: 7707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:26 UTC

On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>
>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>> trawler leaves
>>>> in its wake.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>
>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your
>>> caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
>> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>
>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>
> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that you're
> an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the correct
> perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that is just
> part of your delusion.
>
> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes numerous
> time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people tell you.
> (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation rationally,
> so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead of you.)
>
>>
>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>> does not halt.
>>
>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>> infinite recursion.
>>
>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>> input that never halts.
>>
>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in
>> providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
>> rebuttals were incorrect.
>
> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would
> guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time, and
> in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same arguments
> to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response means that
> people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe you don't
> really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at goading
> people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking future people
> will read your words and think "PO must have been right, because people
> stopped responding, and the person who posts last is automatically
> right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other people think...)
>
> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for you
> to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write your
> paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to waste -
> best just get on with it!!
>
>
> Mike.
>

void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ P((u32)P);
}

I have now proven:

(1) The above computation does specify an infinite chain of invocations
that is computationally equivalent to infinite recursion.

(2) Partial halt decider H correctly recognizes this infinite behavior
pattern, correctly aborts its simulation of P and correctly reports that
P(P) never halts.

The details are provided ion this paper:
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a rebuttal
or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.

Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem and
rhetoric.

I expect that you will come up with some excuse for not posting or
simply ignore this challenge. The one thing that I do not expect from
you is some half-baked nonsense.

You and Kaz are the only ones that never replied with any half-baked
nonsense, all of the actual reasoning has been sound.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6696&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6696

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:46:58 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:46:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 74
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-fuJikrIaMhDHNrwEpApMLfbQLlZi+aPOPH5kl81ETVnFf8oo0DTwgr4Y9e1Swddfa3ZPzMRI0ARMgt7!5ZWQsHL1Ee/FTdEd3Lc3Cr6BV8rO/+IlgrQNRSTqZpE4skTb+CoJfkoAHRWp8A1heGQ5O650nEg=
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: 4826
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:46 UTC

On 6/27/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
>>>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
>>>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>>>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
>>> different H's
>>
>>
>> That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
>> the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
>> liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
>> behavior to infinite recursion.
>
> No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that

OK I will up the ante, you are a damned liar.

void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

_P()
[00000b25](01) 55 push ebp
[00000b26](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000b28](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b29](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b2c](01) 50 push eax
[00000b2d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000b30](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b31](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
[00000b36](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000b39](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00000b3c](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00000b40](02) 7402 jz 00000b44
[00000b42](02) ebfe jmp 00000b42
[00000b44](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000b46](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000b47](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00000b47]

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<nfOdnW60hPElmET9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6698&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6698

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:11:52 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
<gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:11:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <nfOdnW60hPElmET9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tCD0rKmCiMmZipkKnWYsAUHNg2Y62yBxY7GgSxgUe+vU8TOC/uAYCfK0p6ZVLA7ISjXhv0V6VbD098L!GoJk8ADt8e0AXI6mfr66V1rywH7b98vXmVeaDrNWup526vlNGz1XuU09wZ3w7niI8CwRbYB1/q4=
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: 4707
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:11 UTC

On 6/27/2021 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>>>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>>>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to
>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>>>>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>>>>>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
>>>>> different H's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
>>>> the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
>>>> liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
>>>> behavior to infinite recursion.
>>>
>>> No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that
>>
>> OK I will up the ante, you are a damned liar.
>
> That is the code for the FUNCTION P, not the complete code for the
> MACHINE P.
>
> If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be trying to prove
> theorems about Turing Machines.
>
> Call and Raise.
>

Finally a response that is not pure nonsense.

Because the behavior of VM P is entirely controlled by the machine
language of function P your correct assessment is utterly moot.

Infinitely nested simulation is essentially exactly the same thing as
infinite recursion with a few extra purely extraneous details mixed in.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6699&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6699

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:18:17 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me> <a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:18:17 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 144
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Ak4GL5mNNxqshfYSHYOtWQv5fFk256ZyWcd0Ea8cpGOqCV6dk/HVUtjzIZD7PJ6gHOpIPRnDnXMpeWp!Wm9BB8ZEqe5I+qP7pfgO2e0J0sjyPtSccyzOFgfu/XpYPZLbg6w5sQLrsk5HxBq0htTf7bTt/QI=
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: 7832
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:18 UTC

On 6/27/2021 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
>>>> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>>
>>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that
>>> is just part of your delusion.
>>>
>>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation
>>> rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead
>>> of you.)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>>> input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
>>>> rebuttals were incorrect.
>>>
>>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would
>>> guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time,
>>> and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same
>>> arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response
>>> means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe
>>> you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at
>>> goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking
>>> future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right,
>>> because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is
>>> automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other
>>> people think...)
>>>
>>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>>   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>   if (Input_Halts)
>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>   P((u32)P);
>> }
>>
>> I have now proven:
>>
>> (1) The above computation does specify an infinite chain of invocations
>> that is computationally equivalent to infinite recursion.
>>
>> (2) Partial halt decider H correctly recognizes this infinite behavior
>> pattern, correctly aborts its simulation of P and correctly reports that
>> P(P) never halts.
>>
>
> No, you haven't.
>
> You have shown that a P built on an H that doesn't recognizes this
> behavior and thsu doesn't answer is non-Halting.
>
> You have actually proved by providing a trace that the P that is built
> on the H in (2) is Halting.
>
> FAIL.
>

When a simulating halt decider stops simulating its input to prevent the
infinite execution of this input this does not mean this forced to halt
input does not specify infinite execution.

The infinite invocation chain specified by main() is aborted at its
third invocation. As you already agreed if the infinite invocation chain
specified by main() was never aborted it would never halt.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<F4edna4SP_OstUT9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6703&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6703

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:38:56 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:38:57 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <F4edna4SP_OstUT9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 64
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QwHrSOfDGqsmO0z1lVuBJMhrlxet5NMrB5Q596DZsQQ2G05m3m3IG9APJzTnbYf50idVFSiOPyh4U64!yq0Hlf62TzIyZvKG7c4FTmhciT1OpiS3pWxyMQ+Z3ZtkpAA42F1k/kZFKLAaw2ftZfit9x/zfNw=
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: 5035
 by: olcott - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:38 UTC

On 6/27/2021 8:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 2:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>
>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>> trawler leaves
>>>> in its wake.
>>>
>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>
>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
>>> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
>>> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
>>> roof at the break of dawn...
>>
>> For the record, my objection was not so much being a rat per se, but
>> that the Pied Piper analogy makes the commentators the problem and PO
>> the hero.  A hero, in fact, who was cheated of his rightful reward!
>
> His rightful (I assume that you have a good idea what rightful means)
> reward does not include technical responses to gibberish.

On 1/6/2015 1:05 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> Peter Olcott wrote on 1/6/2015 6:25 AM:

I removed my words here are your words:

> Of course they cannot exist. UNDECIDABLE is not a property of a problem
> instance, it's a property of a problem given a particular model of
> problem instances and algorithms. So stop here. Your done because your
> terminology is hopelessly broken. If you want to continue these
> repetitive and off the wall threads, give a clear concise definition of
> the representations of computation and how to emulate them. C and its
> derivatives don't count for many many reasons: 1) the ANSI speck allows
> the same lexical program to return different values in different (or the
> same!!!) implementation 2) read point one again, 3) it's not a very
> interesting computation model, in any event, compared to the members of
> an expanded Chomsky hierarchy.

In other words you simply don't have the software engineering background
to evaluate what I am saying on the basis of software engineering.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<W4GdnaFUZc3gtET9nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6704&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6704

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:44:29 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:44:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <W4GdnaFUZc3gtET9nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 121
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-x9QC9Guw6wFjlcNZrlAhnSCrNSQ7LJFQOSGWI3KLf00DUdAHhS12j2vINzKWswWxqr6t51aNWjC5bA7!IEi0rGpeHV3uzC9hu24Ybbp3JTc6EE1XVy6GQTt9gdFBahsDe6UxA+8WBr9EVmdCB/g+mwYNnk4=
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: 7477
 by: olcott - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:44 UTC

On 6/27/2021 8:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted
>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>>
>>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that
>>> that is just part of your delusion.
>>>
>>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole
>>> situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is
>>> stupid instead of you.)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>>> input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all
>>>> these rebuttals were incorrect.
>>>
>>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I
>>> would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their
>>> time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the
>>> same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of
>>> response means that people agree with you is a classic crank
>>> delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a
>>> deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or
>>> maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think
>>> "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the
>>> person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete
>>> misunderstanding of how other people think...)
>>>
>>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
> <snip reposting of claims not related to my post>
>>
>> If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
>> this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a
>> rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.
>
> I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the
> past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even
> not read them.  It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding
> such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such
> attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.
>

I take this as a cop-out.
I am willing to re-read all of your posts to make sure.
At what point in time do you think that you made a sufficient rebuttal?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<fcWdnZCT3eYFq0T9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=6706&group=comp.ai.philosophy#6706

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:40:24 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:40:24 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <fcWdnZCT3eYFq0T9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 135
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EtixNGH75PxggUas8HLFi3BJYGuctvbZa1mO+EY/AJLOXXeJIGg2xMtKD5W9vLT4kRSEBGeq7wVkUcK!ammjqpZCbhphdx6QXd17JLerKitQQ0UYt2mcH0s+b44AOEsHdYS0wzSXafU6t4FIr7YORfIenUI=
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: 8107
 by: olcott - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:40 UTC

On 6/27/2021 8:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted
>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>>
>>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that
>>> that is just part of your delusion.
>>>
>>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole
>>> situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is
>>> stupid instead of you.)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>>> input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all
>>>> these rebuttals were incorrect.
>>>
>>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I
>>> would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their
>>> time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the
>>> same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of
>>> response means that people agree with you is a classic crank
>>> delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a
>>> deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or
>>> maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think
>>> "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the
>>> person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete
>>> misunderstanding of how other people think...)
>>>
>>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
> <snip reposting of claims not related to my post>
>>
>> If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
>> this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a
>> rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.
>
> I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the
> past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even
> not read them.  It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding
> such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such
> attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.
>
> YOU want everybody here to continue posting for you, using up their own
> time for your benefit while you go round and round in circles forever,
> reposting the same beliefs and simply ignoring the responses.  I'm not
> interested in doing that.
>
>>
>> Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem
>> and rhetoric.
>
> It was not a comment on your specific technical arguments - that's been
> done elsewhere.

I just responded to your "rebuttal".
All that you did was dismiss what I said out-of-hand.

This time I provided all of the actual code that proves that the
conclusion of my sound deductive inference is correct.

That you reject sound deductive inference as proof seems to show that
you are a style-over-substance kind of guy.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:123456
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor