All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am wondering if
that is all he ever had?

/Flibble

On 5/22/2022 11:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am wondering if
> that is all he ever had?
>
> /Flibble
>

It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
instruction when correctly emulated by H.

Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On Sun, 22 May 2022 11:39:43 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 5/22/2022 11:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am
> > wondering if that is all he ever had?
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
>
> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
> instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>
> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
> lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
What is the point of having an infinitely nested simulation when the
proofs you are trying to refute are not infinitely nested nor have any
infinite recursion?

/Flibble

On 5/22/2022 11:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 22 May 2022 11:39:43 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/22/2022 11:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am
>>> wondering if that is all he ever had?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
>> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
>> instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>>
>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
>> lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>
> What is the point of having an infinitely nested simulation when the
> proofs you are trying to refute are not infinitely nested nor have any
> infinite recursion?
>
> /Flibble
>
>

Because my C/x86 does correctly model the Linz proof, it equally applies
to the Linz proof. See my paper for the details of this.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 5/22/22 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 11:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 May 2022 11:39:43 -0500
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2022 11:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am
>>>> wondering if that is all he ever had?
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>>
>>> It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly
>>> determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
>>> instruction when correctly emulated by H.
>>>
>>> Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on the basis of
>>> lack of technical competency or lack of honesty.
>>>
>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>
>> What is the point of having an infinitely nested simulation when the
>> proofs you are trying to refute are not infinitely nested nor have any
>> infinite recursion?
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>>
>
> Because my C/x86 does correctly model the Linz proof, it equally applies
> to the Linz proof. See my paper for the details of this.
>

No, it doesn't.

First, P does not contain its own copy of H, as required to be a
complete program.

Second, H is not "proper" decider, as it is incapable of handling as an
input any arbitrary program.

The input you claim to give to H is incomplete, because it runs code
outside of itself, this makes the P you are giving not actually a
compuation.

You H also isn't a computation by itself, because you don't just give it
"data" to process, but instructions that by the trace it actually is
executing. Thus H by itself is not a compuation.

A PROPER version of H would take a COMPLETE description of the program,
including ALL the code that is needed for it to run, is an "isolated"
execution environment.

You failure to understand this just shows how ignorant you are of basic
computation properties.

FAIL

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:

> All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am wondering if
> that is all he ever had?

Quoting:

From: "Peter Olcott" <olc...@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation

Statement of what I have achieved

I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the
[above] statement has been proven to be true. I have not shown that
solving the Halting Problem is possible, merely refuted every proof
that it is impossible.

The date? Fri, 13 Aug 2004!

Nearly 18 years later he's not even /read/ the real proof in Linz (not
the one presented for historical interest) let alone "every proof".

--
Ben.

On 5/22/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
>> All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am wondering if
>> that is all he ever had?
>
> Quoting:
>
> From: "Peter Olcott" <olc...@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation
>
> Statement of what I have achieved
>
> I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the
> [above] statement has been proven to be true. I have not shown that
> solving the Halting Problem is possible, merely refuted every proof
> that it is impossible.
>
> The date? Fri, 13 Aug 2004!
>
> Nearly 18 years later he's not even /read/ the real proof in Linz (not
> the one presented for historical interest) let alone "every proof".
>

It is the case that the C function H does correctly determine that the C
function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly
emulated by H.

If you deny this fact (or refuse to acknowledge the truth of it) you are
still a sadistic liar playing head games.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 5/22/22 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>
>>> All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am wondering if
>>> that is all he ever had?
>>
>> Quoting:
>>
>>    From: "Peter Olcott" <olc...@worldnet.att.net>
>>    Subject: Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation
>>
>>    Statement of what I have achieved
>>
>>    I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the
>>    [above] statement has been proven to be true. I have not shown that
>>    solving the Halting Problem is possible, merely refuted every proof
>>    that it is impossible.
>>
>> The date? Fri, 13 Aug 2004!
>>
>> Nearly 18 years later he's not even /read/ the real proof in Linz (not
>> the one presented for historical interest) let alone "every proof".
>>
>
> It is the case that the C function H does correctly determine that the C
> function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly
> emulated by H.

The only time H correctly emulates P is when it never aborts, and then
it fails to be a Halt Decider.

So, Ok, you have made a point, won a little skirmish, but need to admit
you lost the battle.

If H returns H(P,P) as 0, then P(P) Halts, so H is incorrect, as a
CORRECT simulation of the input to H would show (Which H can not provide).

>
> If you deny this fact (or refuse to acknowledge the truth of it) you are
> still a sadistic liar playing head games.
>

No, it doesn't, and the fact that you have never pointed out an error in
the refutations just shows that YOU are the liar, and trying to play
head games. It is clear that you just do not understand what truth
actually is, and that it is a foreign concept to you.

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> Wrote in message:r
> All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am wondering ifthat is all he ever had?/Flibble

Test of Android client.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html