Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature is to build better mice.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V26 [ defined sets ]

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V26 [ defined sets ]olcott
`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V26 [ defined sets ]Richard Damon

1
Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V26 [ defined sets ]

<Oemdnf7g1f0Icgb8nZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23839&group=comp.theory#23839

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:29:25 -0600
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:29:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.2
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
Content-Language: en-US
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Subject: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V26 [ defined sets ]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Oemdnf7g1f0Icgb8nZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zBU233ynsIwyaFPP+AYz+HujZsO56IN2BH1dSmtE2hSK48ULq3I9HyhbGP+Qz4IjtbdeqHBJyaZBxU9!6efRHOd0tcgf+WxzuOPV1CwR3o8Niy9uDmIodNhYEiIJe/l+dCfq4Wb00Qp5nODCGrcdaU87XAMi!cQ==
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: 3613
 by: olcott - Mon, 22 Nov 2021 19:29 UTC

#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef int (*ptr)();

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
int P(ptr x)
{ H(x, x);
return 1; // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
}

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

Computation that halts
a computation is said to halt whenever it enters a final state.
(Linz:1990:234)

[PSR_set] Combinations of H/P having pathological self-reference
Every H of H(P,P) invoked from main() where P(P) calls this same H(P,P)
and H simulates or executes its input and aborts or does not abort its
input P never reaches its last instruction.
∀H ∊ PSR_set ∀P ∊ PSR_set (Input_Never_Halts(H(P,P)))

[PSR_subset] Because we know that the input to H(P,P) never halts for
the whole PSR_set and a subset of these H/P combinations aborts the
execution or simulation of its input then we know that for this entire
PSR subset the input to H(P,P) never halts and H(P,P) halts.
PSR_Subset ⊆ PSR_set ∀H ∊ PSR_Subset (Halts(H(P,P)))

[PSR_subset + P(P)_set] Appending the computation int main(void) { P(P);
} to the PSR_subset we derive another set having the exact same H/P
pairs. In this set the input to H(P,P) never halts and P(P) halts. This
proves that no contradiction is formed.
∃H ∊ [PSR_subset + P(P)_set] ∃P ∊ [PSR_subset + P(P)_set]
((Input_Never_Halts(H(P,P))) ∧ Halts(P(P)))

[Decidable_PSR_subset] The subset of the PSR_subset where H returns 0 on
the basis that H correctly detects that P specifies infinite recursion
defines the decidable domain of function H.

H is a computable function that accepts or rejects inputs in its domain
on the basis that these inputs specify a sequence of configurations that
reach their final state.
H is a correct decider and H has a correct halt deciding basis.

The above H could detect that its simulated P is calling H(P,P) with the
same parameters that it was called with, thus specifying infinite
recursion.

See Page 3 of:
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2)

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V26 [ defined sets ]

<lGSmJ.31152$L_2.10607@fx04.iad>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=23840&group=comp.theory#23840

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V26 [ defined sets ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Oemdnf7g1f0Icgb8nZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Oemdnf7g1f0Icgb8nZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <lGSmJ.31152$L_2.10607@fx04.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2021 15:01:14 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5013
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:01 UTC

On 11/22/21 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
>
> 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
> int P(ptr x)
> {
>   H(x, x);
>   return 1; // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
> }
>
> int main(void)
> {
>   H(P, P);
> }
>
> Computation that halts
> a computation is said to halt whenever it enters a final state.
> (Linz:1990:234)

Right, if the COMPUTATION enters a final state, and non-halting would be
if it will NEVER enter a final state.

Note partial simulation/execution is NOT the equivalent of doing the
computation. PERIOD.

>
> [PSR_set] Combinations of H/P having pathological self-reference
> Every H of H(P,P) invoked from main() where P(P) calls this same H(P,P)
> and H simulates or executes its input and aborts or does not abort its
> input P never reaches its last instruction.
> ∀H ∊ PSR_set ∀P ∊ PSR_set (Input_Never_Halts(H(P,P)))

LIE. and blantent false hold.

yes, if H(P,P) never returns a value, then for THOSE Hs the P that
relates to it, will never halt.

BUT, for ALL H that do return the value 0 from H(P,P), then it has been
shown that the ACTUAL COMPUTATION of P(P) will Halt.

You can not show ONE actual P from this set (those built from an H that
returns 0 for H(P,P) that does not halt.

You seem to not want to look at P, but the PARTIAL Simulation done
inside H of P, but that is NOT P, so the claim is just a deception.

>
> [PSR_subset] Because we know that the input to H(P,P) never halts for
> the whole PSR_set and a subset of these H/P combinations aborts the
> execution or simulation of its input then we know that for this entire
> PSR subset the input to H(P,P) never halts and H(P,P) halts.
> PSR_Subset ⊆ PSR_set ∀H ∊ PSR_Subset (Halts(H(P,P)))

LIE. As shown above, ALL these P(P) computations Halt.

>
> [PSR_subset + P(P)_set] Appending the computation int main(void) { P(P);
> } to the PSR_subset we derive another set having the exact same H/P
> pairs. In this set the input to H(P,P) never halts and P(P) halts. This
> proves that no contradiction is formed.
> ∃H ∊ [PSR_subset + P(P)_set]    ∃P ∊ [PSR_subset + P(P)_set]
> ((Input_Never_Halts(H(P,P))) ∧ Halts(P(P)))

LIE. You admit here that P(P) halts, and that IS what the input to H is
in the call to H(P,P). PERIOD.

>
> [Decidable_PSR_subset] The subset of the PSR_subset where H returns 0 on
> the basis that H correctly detects that P specifies infinite recursion
> defines the decidable domain of function H.

FALSE. H INCORRECTLY detects infinite recursion when it looks at the P
based on it as it incorrectly guesses the behavior of the H that is in P
that NEEDS to be an actual copy of itself, and thus do exactly as it does.

FAIL.

>
> H is a computable function that accepts or rejects inputs in its domain
> on the basis that these inputs specify a sequence of configurations that
> reach their final state.
> H is a correct decider and H has a correct halt deciding basis.

Maybe it is a corrrect POOP decider, but a Halt Decider must give the
right answer for the behavior of the Computation whose representaiton
was provided as its input.

Thus H(P,P) must give the answer that corresponds to the behavior of P(P)

>
> The above H could detect that its simulated P is calling H(P,P) with the
> same parameters that it was called with, thus specifying infinite
> recursion.

LIE. FALSE LOGIC.

If H(P,P) aborts its simulation of P(P), then P(P) calling H(P,P) can
NOT result in infinite recursion.

FAIL.

>
> See Page 3 of:
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2

Just a bunch of LIES.

>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2)
>
>
>
>

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor