On 11/11/2021 5:04 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:16:42 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>
>> ... I have terminal cancer in its advanced stages.
>
> I hope that doesn't mean exactly what it says. If it does I am sorry
> to hear it. Have as decent health as possible for as long as possible.
>

Follicular lymphoma throughout my body.
A Flippi index of 3 beginning two years ago.

https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi

It would be really great if my reviewers would break out of rebuttal
mode and truly try to earnestly understand what I am saying.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/11/21 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 5:04 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 12:16:42 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> ... I have terminal cancer in its advanced stages.
>>
>> I hope that doesn't mean exactly what it says. If it does I am sorry
>> to hear it. Have as decent health as possible for as long as possible.
>>
>
> Follicular lymphoma throughout my body.
> A Flippi index of 3 beginning two years ago.
>
> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi
>
>
> It would be really great if my reviewers would break out of rebuttal
> mode and truly try to earnestly understand what I am saying.
>

The problem is what you say is actually incorrect when examined within
the framework of the system you claim to be working in.

As I have said several times, if your disagreement is with the logical
framework that mathematics works with, this proof is not the place to
try to tackle that issue. You have no 'authority' (and neither do we) to
change that logical framework inside this proof.

You DON'T get to change the definitions or the rules.

By those rules, the proof that you are trying to discredit is very
solid, so you really have no hope of disproving it.

If you want to try to show that you can build an equivalent math system
on a different logical base, you need to start with that base and start
at the BOTTOM. Basic number theory and work up there and show that you
can derive a system sufficiently similar to mathematics to be useful,
but without the 'problems' you don't like.

Greater minds they yours have spent lifetimes working on it, and there
are some parts of math that can be done, but no where near the full theory.

Good luck in trying to do better with your background.

Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> writes:
>
> Besides the fact that there is no good reason to write that type
> unsafe code in C++ did you test it? The code will never compile
> because of the forward reference to H.
>
> And well, H calls P and P calls H. What do you expect?

He's imagining he can solve the Halting Problem if he uses the x86
instruction set instead of a Turing Machine. Many people have tried to
explain the flaws in his argument; he doesn't listen. There is nothing
to do but killfile him.

On 11/11/2021 6:47 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> writes:
>>
>> Besides the fact that there is no good reason to write that type
>> unsafe code in C++ did you test it? The code will never compile
>> because of the forward reference to H.
>>
>> And well, H calls P and P calls H. What do you expect?
>
> He's imagining he can solve the Halting Problem if he uses the x86
> instruction set instead of a Turing Machine. Many people have tried to
> explain the flaws in his argument; he doesn't listen. There is nothing
> to do but killfile him.
>

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

Arthur Schopenhauer

People that cannot see the target are unqualified to judge hits from
misses.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/2021 12:24 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>
> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>
>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.

I do understand that is simply not the way it works.
If you want to continue discussing this reply to the follow-up group.

Flibble agrees that I am correct:
[Why has the argument with Olcott gone on for so long?]
On 11/13/2021 10:57 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
> Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
> of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
> nowhere and never ends.
>
> /Flibble
>

>> [...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
>
> Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
> the Collatz conjecture?
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/21 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 12:24 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>
>> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>>
>>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>
> I do understand that is simply not the way it works.
> If you want to continue discussing this reply to the follow-up group.

No, it is a true statement. A vast majority, if not all, of the unsolved
problems in mathematics can be converted into a Turing Machine working
on the answer, and the mere knowledge that the Computation it is working
on is non-halting proves one side of the problem, and knowing that it is
halting, proves the other side (getting the final state would be a
bonus, but knowing it is there is a big step).

I think you just don't understand the nature of Mathematics to
understand what having an actual Halting Decider would do.

Now, if it takes a 1000 years to run, it may not change things right
away, but it says they all ARE solvable.

>
> Flibble agrees that I am correct:
> [Why has the argument with Olcott gone on for so long?]
> On 11/13/2021 10:57 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
> > Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
> > of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
> > nowhere and never ends.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
>
>
>>> [...]  The Collatz conjecture?  Solved.  [...]
>>
>> Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
>> the Collatz conjecture?
>>
>
>

On 11/13/2021 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/13/21 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 12:24 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>>>
>>>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>>>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>>>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>>>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>>
>> I do understand that is simply not the way it works.
>> If you want to continue discussing this reply to the follow-up group.
>
> No, it is a true statement.

If H(P,P) correctly decides the halt status of its input suddenly H
becomes all knowing by pure magic.

> A vast majority, if not all, of the unsolved
> problems in mathematics can be converted into a Turing Machine working
> on the answer, and the mere knowledge that the Computation it is working
> on is non-halting proves one side of the problem, and knowing that it is
> halting, proves the other side (getting the final state would be a
> bonus, but knowing it is there is a big step).
>
> I think you just don't understand the nature of Mathematics to
> understand what having an actual Halting Decider would do.
>
> Now, if it takes a 1000 years to run, it may not change things right
> away, but it says they all ARE solvable.
>
>
>>
>> Flibble agrees that I am correct:
>> [Why has the argument with Olcott gone on for so long?]
>> On 11/13/2021 10:57 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>  > Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
>>  > Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
>>  > of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
>>  > nowhere and never ends.
>>  >
>>  > /Flibble
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>>>> [...]  The Collatz conjecture?  Solved.  [...]
>>>
>>> Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
>>> the Collatz conjecture?
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/21 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/13/21 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2021 12:24 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>>>>
>>>>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>>>>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>>>>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>>>>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>>>
>>> I do understand that is simply not the way it works.
>>> If you want to continue discussing this reply to the follow-up group.
>>
>> No, it is a true statement.
>
>
> If H(P,P) correctly decides the halt status of its input suddenly H
> becomes all knowing by pure magic.

No, that isn't what he said, he said if the Halting Problem is SOLVED,
ie we have an H such that H(P,I) for ALL machines P and inputs I gave
the right answer in finite time, then THAT H would solve all sorts of
problems.

Yes, your worthless H that claim to handle the one trivial case (which
is still doesn't) wouldn't do that, and in fact, it wouldn't dicredit
the other proofs of the halting theorem so you still would have that
thorn in the side of you precious idea of Truth.

In fact, all that showing a proof that you can come up with an H that
correctly gets the answer right does is prove that somewhere in getting
to that proof the logic system has gone inconsistent, as you have done
nothing to actually show an error in the original proof that it is
impossible to have such an H. The addition is almost certainly going to
be found in your own logic, as otherwise we need to find another great
reset in mathematical logic after someone can figure out what definition
was added that broke mathematics (like was found in Niave Set Theory).

>
>> A vast majority, if not all, of the unsolved problems in mathematics
>> can be converted into a Turing Machine working on the answer, and the
>> mere knowledge that the Computation it is working on is non-halting
>> proves one side of the problem, and knowing that it is halting, proves
>> the other side (getting the final state would be a bonus, but knowing
>> it is there is a big step).
>>
>> I think you just don't understand the nature of Mathematics to
>> understand what having an actual Halting Decider would do.
>>
>> Now, if it takes a 1000 years to run, it may not change things right
>> away, but it says they all ARE solvable.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Flibble agrees that I am correct:
>>> [Why has the argument with Olcott gone on for so long?]
>>> On 11/13/2021 10:57 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>  > Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
>>>  > Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
>>>  > of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
>>>  > nowhere and never ends.
>>>  >
>>>  > /Flibble
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> [...]  The Collatz conjecture?  Solved.  [...]
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
>>>> the Collatz conjecture?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

On 11/13/2021 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/13/21 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 1:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/13/21 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2021 12:24 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>>>>>
>>>>>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>>>>>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>>>>>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>>>>>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>>>>
>>>> I do understand that is simply not the way it works.
>>>> If you want to continue discussing this reply to the follow-up group.
>>>
>>> No, it is a true statement.
>>
>>
>> If H(P,P) correctly decides the halt status of its input suddenly H
>> becomes all knowing by pure magic.
>
> No, that isn't what he said, he said if the Halting Problem is SOLVED,

Ah you caught an actual mistake of mine.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/13/2021 12:24 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>
> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>
>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>> someone solved it,

Because I didn't see these last three words my reply was incorrect.

I am not trying to solve the halting problem merely show how this
simplest possible equivalent to the halting theorem counter-examples can
have its halt status correctly decided by H.

int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{ x(y); // direct execution of P(P)
return 1;
}

// Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
void P(ptr x)
{ H(x, x);
}

int main(void)
{ H(P, P);
}

H simulates its input and as soon as its input calls H with the same
parameters that H was called with H aborts this simulation and returns 0
for not halting, infinite recursion detected. It took me 16,000 hours
since 2004 to get it this simple.

> it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>> [...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
>
> Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
> the Collatz conjecture?
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2021-11-13 20:05:19 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> On 11/13/21 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>>>>>
>>>>>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>>>>>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>>>>>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>>>>>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>>
>> If H(P,P) correctly decides the halt status of its input suddenly H
>> becomes all knowing by pure magic.
>
> No, that isn't what he said, he said if the Halting Problem is SOLVED,
> ie we have an H such that H(P,I) for ALL machines P and inputs I gave
> the right answer in finite time, then THAT H would solve all sorts of
> problems.

In order to solve those problem it would be sufficient to have some method
to solve the Halting Problem of Turing Machines, not necessarily a Turing
computable one. Even a method involving magic would do as long as its result
can be trusted.

Mikko

On 11/14/2021 5:36 AM, Mikko Levanto wrote:
> On 2021-11-13 20:05:19 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>
>> On 11/13/21 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>>>>>>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>>>>>>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>>>>>>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>>>
>>> If H(P,P) correctly decides the halt status of its input suddenly H
>>> becomes all knowing by pure magic.
>>
>> No, that isn't what he said, he said if the Halting Problem is SOLVED,
>> ie we have an H such that H(P,I) for ALL machines P and inputs I gave
>> the right answer in finite time, then THAT H would solve all sorts of
>> problems.
>

If the halting problem is solved then you could make a program that
doesn't halt until it figures out a physical cure for old age thus
providng physical immortality.

> In order to solve those problem it would be sufficient to have some method
> to solve the Halting Problem of Turing Machines, not necessarily a Turing
> computable one. Even a method involving magic would do as long as its
> result
> can be trusted.
>
> Mikko
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/14/21 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/14/2021 5:36 AM, Mikko Levanto wrote:
>> On 2021-11-13 20:05:19 +0000, Richard Damon said:
>>
>>> On 11/13/21 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
>>>>>>>> someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
>>>>>>>> Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
>>>>>>>> be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
>>>>
>>>> If H(P,P) correctly decides the halt status of its input suddenly H
>>>> becomes all knowing by pure magic.
>>>
>>> No, that isn't what he said, he said if the Halting Problem is
>>> SOLVED, ie we have an H such that H(P,I) for ALL machines P and
>>> inputs I gave the right answer in finite time, then THAT H would
>>> solve all sorts of problems.
>>
>
> If the halting problem is solved then you could make a program that
> doesn't halt until it figures out a physical cure for old age thus
> providng physical immortality.

No, the Halting Problem doesn't tell you the ANSWER the other machine
would give, just if it will give one, so a Halting Decider could just
tell you IF a physical cure for old age exists.

And that, only if you can write a finite algorithm of enumerated steps
to find that physical cure. Not every problem in the world can be
solved with a computation.

The key is that most MATHEMATICAL propositions can be,

>
>> In order to solve those problem it would be sufficient to have some
>> method
>> to solve the Halting Problem of Turing Machines, not necessarily a Turing
>> computable one. Even a method involving magic would do as long as its
>> result
>> can be trusted.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
>