I have had many thousands of reviews by at least a hundred different
people over the last three years and no one could correctly point out
any mistake.

MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that I can quote his agreement
that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not reviewed or
agreed to anything else):

(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).

Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed this
criteria has been met by the behavior of D simulated by H: that D would
remain stuck in recursive simulation unless H aborts its simulation of D.

void D(void (*x)())
{ int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
}

It is also true that the relationship between H and D is the same
pathological relationship of the halting problem proofs.

For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

All of the above taken together does show that I have correctly refuted
the conventional halting problem proofs. Every recent rebuttal has
simply disagreed with the easily verified facts. The same facts that two
people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed to.

*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/23 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> I have had many thousands of reviews by at least a hundred different
> people over the last three years and no one could correctly point out
> any mistake.

And they have said that *IF* H does a CORRECT simulation and comes to a
VALID conclusion, it can make that answer.

Your H doesn't, as is proven by the fact that D(D) Halts, so it is
impossible to conclude that a correct and complete simulation done by
ANYTING would never halt.

Your H, like you, just uses inval

>
> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that I can quote his agreement
> that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not reviewed or
> agreed to anything else):
>
> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
> that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
>
> Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed this
> criteria has been met by the behavior of D simulated by H: that D would
> remain stuck in recursive simulation unless H aborts its simulation of D.
>
> void D(void (*x)())
> {
>   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>   if (Halt_Status)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
>   return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
> }
>

and

int main()
{ Output("H says ", H(D,D));
D(D);
Output("But D(D) Halts");
}

shows that H is not a correct halt decider.

> It is also true that the relationship between H and D is the same
> pathological relationship of the halting problem proofs.
>
> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> All of the above taken together does show that I have correctly refuted
> the conventional halting problem proofs. Every recent rebuttal has
> simply disagreed with the easily verified facts. The same facts that two
> people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed to.
>
> *Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
>
>

But your H gives the wrong answer to the ACTUAL Halting problem, needing
to give the Halting status of the direct running of the machne at the
input with the input given.

On 1/31/2023 8:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>
>> On 1/31/23 6:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 8:07:58 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I have had many thousands of reviews by at least a hundred different
>>>>> people over the last three years and no one could correctly point out
>>>>> any mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that I can quote his agreement
>>>>> that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not reviewed or
>>>>> agreed to anything else):
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>> unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
>>>>> that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
>>>>>
>>>>> Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed this
>>>>> criteria has been met by the behavior of D simulated by H: that D would
>>>>> remain stuck in recursive simulation unless H aborts its simulation of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> void D(void (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also true that the relationship between H and D is the same
>>>>> pathological relationship of the halting problem proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
>>>>> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the above taken together does show that I have correctly refuted
>>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs. Every recent rebuttal has
>>>>> simply disagreed with the easily verified facts. The same facts that two
>>>>> people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed to.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
>>>>>
>>>> You have seen no real rebuttal because you have never shown us your
>>>> proof - the code for your H. Since you keep it hidden we must assume
>>>> it contains errors.
>>> What? He's published H but it makes no odds whether it's correct or not
>>> because he has told us, long ago, that he's not concerned with the
>>> halting problem:
>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>> He as explicitly stated that he's "redefined" what a non-halting
>>> computation is:
>>> "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
>>> unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the
>>> conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a few
>>> more."
>>> I don't think he could have been clearer.
>>> I'm not sure how he has managed to keep people talking about this other
>>> "not quite the halting problem", but he has.
>>>
>>>> I assume that what you are doing is trying to prove that a universal
>>>> Turing Machine decider exists by showing that one proof that none
>>>> exists is not correct.
>>> No, he's trying to show that something that is not the halting problem
>>> can be decided. I'm not sure why anyone cares about this other problem.
>>> Certainly he has never been able to show any error in any proof. But
>>> then he does not know what a proof is. He thinks that if
>>> A, B, C ⊦ X then A, B, C, ~A ⊬ X
>>>
>>>> But what I just said does not follow and you
>>>> are rebutted.
>>
>> The problem is even though he has redefined it, he still says it is
>> the "equivalent" problem and thus he has disproved the proof.
>
> Why is that a problem? He's been clear that whatever H is doing, it is
> not deciding halting:
>
Russell's Paradox was only eliminated by redefining set theory thus
redefining the problem. *Below I prove that H(D,D)==0 is correct*

I
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).

II
The correct simulation of D by H meets the (a) portion above

III
The relationship between H and D is the exact same pathological
relationship of the HP proofs

Therefore the fact that H(D,D)==0 is correct refutes the conventional HP
proofs.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/23 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2023 8:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 1/31/23 6:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 8:07:58 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> I have had many thousands of reviews by at least a hundred different
>>>>>> people over the last three years and no one could correctly point out
>>>>>> any mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that I can quote his
>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>> that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not
>>>>>> reviewed or
>>>>>> agreed to anything else):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H
>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>>>>> unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
>>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words
>>>>>> proves
>>>>>> that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed this
>>>>>> criteria has been met by the behavior of D simulated by H: that D
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> remain stuck in recursive simulation unless H aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void D(void (*x)())
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is also true that the relationship between H and D is the same
>>>>>> pathological relationship of the halting problem proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
>>>>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
>>>>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the above taken together does show that I have correctly
>>>>>> refuted
>>>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs. Every recent rebuttal has
>>>>>> simply disagreed with the easily verified facts. The same facts
>>>>>> that two
>>>>>> people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
>>>>>>
>>>>> You have seen no real rebuttal because you have never shown us your
>>>>> proof - the code for your H. Since you keep it hidden we must assume
>>>>> it contains errors.
>>>> What?  He's published H but it makes no odds whether it's correct or
>>>> not
>>>> because he has told us, long ago, that he's not concerned with the
>>>> halting problem:
>>>>     Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct"
>>>> answer
>>>>         even though P(P) halts?
>>>>     PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>> He as explicitly stated that he's "redefined" what a non-halting
>>>> computation is:
>>>>     "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
>>>>     unless its simulation is aborted.  This maps to every element of
>>>> the
>>>>     conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and
>>>> a few
>>>>     more."
>>>> I don't think he could have been clearer.
>>>> I'm not sure how he has managed to keep people talking about this other
>>>> "not quite the halting problem", but he has.
>>>>
>>>>> I assume that what you are doing is trying to prove that a universal
>>>>> Turing Machine decider exists by showing that one proof that none
>>>>> exists is not correct.
>>>> No, he's trying to show that something that is not the halting problem
>>>> can be decided.  I'm not sure why anyone cares about this other
>>>> problem.
>>>> Certainly he has never been able to show any error in any proof.  But
>>>> then he does not know what a proof is.  He thinks that if
>>>>     A, B, C ⊦ X  then A, B, C, ~A ⊬ X
>>>>
>>>>> But what I just said does not follow and you
>>>>> are rebutted.
>>>
>>> The problem is even though he has redefined it, he still says it is
>>> the "equivalent" problem and thus he has disproved the proof.
>>
>> Why is that a problem?  He's been clear that whatever H is doing, it is
>> not deciding halting:
>>
> Russell's Paradox was only eliminated by redefining set theory thus
> redefining the problem. *Below I prove that H(D,D)==0 is correct*

And the whole field of mathematicians understood the problem, and were
looking for the answer.

No one, but you, seems to have a problem with Halting not being a
computable function.

>
> I
> (a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
> unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
> The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
> that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).

No, the above words are only a "Tautology" is a system of logic that
succubs to Curry's Paradox.

H is only "correct" in its actions, if it is presumed that H will be
correct in its actions.

The equivalent "Tautology" is

If this statement is True, then Peter Olcott is a Pathological Liar.

That statement can be proven "True" by the meaning of the words, and the
"self-reference" isn't "conradictory". Since it can be proven true, you
ARE a Pathological Liar.

The flaw

>
> II
> The correct simulation of D by H meets the (a) portion above

No, it doesn't, because at that point there is no accepted rule that
actually PROVES the input in non-halting.

If you disagree, so the reference.

This has been asked before, you you haven't shown it, therefore the
above statement can be take as a INTENTIAL LIE.

>
> III
> The relationship between H and D is the exact same pathological
> relationship of the HP proofs
>
> Therefore the fact that H(D,D)==0 is correct refutes the conventional HP
> proofs.
>
Nope. Just proves that you are an pathological lying idiot.

You have shown that you don't understand that very basics of what a
proof is.

On 1/31/23 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
> Russell's Paradox was only eliminated by redefining set theory thus
> redefining the problem. *Below I prove that H(D,D)==0 is correct*

IF this is the basis of your arguement, you must realize that it wasn't
done my just teaking "set theory", but a sequence of:

Demonstrating that the existing Naive Set Theory was broken (by
Russell's Paradox)

The Field abandoing as a useful field Naive Set Theory

A new set theory was developed with some new base axioms / definitions
that prevent Russell's Paradox from happening in the new system.

If you want to do the same about the Halting Problem, you need to:

First demonstrate an ACTUAL PARADOX or other problem that ACTUALLY
Happens in the Field base on this.

The fact that the Halting Function is not computable is NOT something
most people are concerned with.

You can then create a new alternate field with some changed definitions,
and then starting at the very base of the field, show what you can prove
in your new system, and convince people that it is actually useful for
something.

If the change is just in the definition of Halting, it might not be that
much work you need to redo.

If you are going to try to change the fundamental definition of "True",
then you are going to need to create a FULL NEW system starting at the
very fundamentals, and work up from there.

If you knew what you were doing, maybe this could be done in a full
lifetime, but I don't see you doing that.

Note, that even if you can show your new system is "useful", until you
can show a big enough problem with the existing system, people will
still use it, so you haven't "refuted" those systems.

Ultimately, the actual truth is that you just don't like some of the
conclusions that standard logic comes up with, and you don't realize
that the modifications you keep trying to talk about are actually
adoptied ideas in limited fields, but the people in them KNOW that they
are not working in a system that can support standard mathematics, so
they are not in conflict with things like the incompleteness theorem.