Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

We don't really understand it, so we'll give it to the programmers.

devel / comp.theory / Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

SubjectAuthor
* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
+* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
|`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
| `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
|  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
|   +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
|   |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
|   | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
|   |  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
|   |   `- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
|   `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
|    `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
|     `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
|      `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
|       `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
|        `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
|         `- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
+* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMd thiebaud
|`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
| +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
| |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
| | `- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
| `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMSkep Dick
|  `- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
+* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Harnden
|`- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
 `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
   +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inolcott
   |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |   `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |    `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |     `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |      `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |       `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |        `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |         `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |          `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |           `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |            `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |             `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |              `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |               `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                 `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                   `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                    `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                     `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                      `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                       `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                        `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                         +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |+- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                         |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMSkep Dick
   |                         | +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMSkep Dick
   |                         |  +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                         |  | +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                         |  | | +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | | |`- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                         |  | | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |+- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  | +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |  +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |   +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |   `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |    +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |    `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |     `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my olcott
   |                         |  | |  |      `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |       `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my olcott
   |                         |  | |  |        `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |         +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |         `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |          +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |          `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |           +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my olcott
   |                         |  | |  |           `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |            +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |            |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
   |                         |  | |  |            | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |            |  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
   |                         |  | |  |            |   +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |            |   `- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
   |                         |  | |  |            +* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |            |`* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
   |                         |  | |  |            | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |            |  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
   |                         |  | |  |            |   `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |            |    `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published inMr Flibble
   |                         |  | |  |            |     `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   |                         |  | |  |            +- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  |            `- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMDennis Bush
   |                         |  | |  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMRichard Damon
   |                         |  | `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMdklei...@gmail.com
   |                         |  `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMSkep Dick
   |                         `* Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott
   `- Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACMolcott

Pages:12345678910
Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37606&group=comp.theory#37606

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.lang.c comp.lang.c++
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:14:08 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Content-Language: en-US
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Subject: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Followup-To: comp.theory
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 18
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8v2lz+tmuK/4WM8JWzJsubf7T+PYyJCm6PRnFQFaSy8er/CW5quV5xjobYiVTLS2WCwdOhp4Y0Kd53L!aCeEw+QB1Upn9ViXSdMh43QOLryBIxbolniTAadGKv2NmgsL3E0iPmSpBOkeSUJBGc5c+ntPsbHV!MQ==
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:14 UTC

*This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*

I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
it can be detected in the program used in the classical
proof of incomputability.

*Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37607&group=comp.theory#37607

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in
CACM said about my work
Message-ID: <20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:22:09 UTC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:22:08 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1668
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:22 UTC

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>
> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
> proof of incomputability.
>
> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering*
> ?
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>

I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your halting
decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite recursion" is an
ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the HP proofs you are
attempting to refute.

/Flibble

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37608&group=comp.theory#37608

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:42:49 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Ememc6U1V4m/ACpJPg5ocVE8qb6IH09+mGdg7LiSAghYHYYVsUjiJi0vkZAVRuESUQSaUvpoLjD8con!dkEIyW6pyQLs+8a+7Qxbl6hUA8QOKHG/3klujAyyl0TQbPcjp5ZsJ83g2FDAA6N28hIyv1PGLacF!zA==
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:43 UTC

On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>
>> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>> proof of incomputability.
>>
>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering*
>> ?
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>
>
> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your halting
> decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite recursion" is an
> ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the HP proofs you are
> attempting to refute.
>
> /Flibble
>

Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
"computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other ballgame.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37609&group=comp.theory#37609

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in
CACM said about my work
Message-ID: <20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 44
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:51:52 UTC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:51:51 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2497
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:51 UTC

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
> >>
> >> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
> >> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
> >> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
> >> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
> >> proof of incomputability.
> >>
> >> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
> >> engineering* ?
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>
> >
> > I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
> > halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
> > recursion" is an ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the HP
> > proofs you are attempting to refute.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
> ballgame.
>

Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear. Also, publishing to
the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.

This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your "simulating
halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to address those flaws,
you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and over
again.

/Flibble

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37612&group=comp.theory#37612

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:38:46 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:39:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 67
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-SCxaMZf7yJ1qSCCXCDdb5FNfa7IzYeVGg5/N7/MPbr11hCONT0FnaYA98pEu1QyBSTBqqsT3KQhO1XO!JLMhxSIXuLICYOS8GDZ7zluA3SX4AVKaibF6RtLSj9x89xhZF6E0+7pGh+Kre2DDBt2F97I49/8=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:39 UTC

On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>
>>>> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>> proof of incomputability.
>>>>
>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>> recursion" is an ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the HP
>>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
>> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
>> ballgame.
>>
>
> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear. Also, publishing to
> the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
>
> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your "simulating
> halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to address those flaws,
> you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and over
> again.
>
> /Flibble
>

There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
non-terminating sequence of instructions.

All of the so-called "flaws" were only instances of the *straw man*
deception in that they referred to something besides the actual behavior
of the actual input as measured by the correct x86 emulation of the
first argument to H(P,P) by H.

*straw man*
An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<20220814175035.00006ad4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37614&group=comp.theory#37614

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in
CACM said about my work
Message-ID: <20220814175035.00006ad4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 60
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:50:36 UTC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:50:35 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 3306
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:50 UTC

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:39:06 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
> >>>> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
> >>>> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
> >>>> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
> >>>> proof of incomputability.
> >>>>
> >>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
> >>>> engineering* ?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
> >>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
> >>> recursion" is an ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the HP
> >>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
> >> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
> >> ballgame.
> >>
> >
> > Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear. Also, publishing
> > to the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
> >
> > This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your
> > "simulating halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to
> > address those flaws, you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit
> > over and over and over again.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
> non-terminating sequence of instructions.

WRONG. The primary flaw in your halt decider is the ASSUMPTION that if
P references H then P is non-halting, i.e. your halt decider does not
actually analyze P to determine whether it actually halts or not, ergo
your halt decider is nothing of the sort.

/Flibble

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<W1idnbMVTfJqtGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37616&group=comp.theory#37616

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:59:35 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:59:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814175035.00006ad4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220814175035.00006ad4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <W1idnbMVTfJqtGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ZBNm/6OSyq5Wtx0jx8O/G+3lZRrZjFoz6EPSOsC6LFpVWKVy6K/34HaaJngSLB/L6GsQouC++/pc35K!d5+42I1Ztu+nv0h3vW1azFrgplkqFG355buwF7PIZVyauznw3CcMiEXnpEGdVqYCosG9IAXfU2o=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 16:59 UTC

On 8/14/2022 11:50 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:39:06 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>>> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>>> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>>> proof of incomputability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>>>> recursion" is an ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the HP
>>>>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
>>>> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
>>>> ballgame.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear. Also, publishing
>>> to the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
>>>
>>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your
>>> "simulating halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to
>>> address those flaws, you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit
>>> over and over and over again.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
>> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
>> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
>
> WRONG. The primary flaw in your halt decider is the ASSUMPTION that if
> P references H then P is non-halting,

*THAT THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD IN NO ACTUAL REBUTTAL*
The actual behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct x86
emulation of the first argument to H(P,P) by H conclusively proves that
P specifies a non-halting sequence of instructions.

*I just got it to compile and correctly run on Ubuntu 16.04 Linux today*
This version is not currently published.

> i.e. your halt decider does not
> actually analyze P to determine whether it actually halts or not, ergo
> your halt decider is nothing of the sort.
>
> /Flibble
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37617&group=comp.theory#37617

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!Ojo9tLwCkFeEtRnxG8QQ3g.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: thiebaud...@aol.com (d thiebaud)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:00:22 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="27962"; posting-host="Ojo9tLwCkFeEtRnxG8QQ3g.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: d thiebaud - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:00 UTC

On 8/14/22 11:14, olcott wrote:
> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>
>     I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>     that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>     non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>     it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>     proof of incomputability.
>
> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>
>
"Can _sometimes_ be detected". This does not affect the halting problem.

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37618&group=comp.theory#37618

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:06:07 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:06:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 27
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-aMqWI4MhBdJ57E8CS4GaDzAusIxOGeE1OLql/0h3QZUnROL1Pql+nlbJBpAl+SbO3+5e4THhTmxFJ+X!uEpxaQgddNhIk9fUuF/eshI+2w0rfH3QGx37OdKZcdbMbx1qVeAFUx2uRmirnw/zTTiw5kLuHAc=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:06 UTC

On 8/14/2022 12:00 PM, d thiebaud wrote:
> On 8/14/22 11:14, olcott wrote:
>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>
>>      I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>      that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>      non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>      it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>      proof of incomputability.
>>
>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>
>>
> "Can _sometimes_ be detected". This does not affect the halting problem.

It would take me much longer than several human lifetimes to make an ALL
KNOWING halt decider. That it refutes the conventional proofs is all
that I was ever aiming for.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<20220814181535.00006813@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37621&group=comp.theory#37621

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in
CACM said about my work
Message-ID: <20220814181535.00006813@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814175035.00006ad4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<W1idnbMVTfJqtGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 80
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:15:36 UTC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:15:35 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 4248
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:15 UTC

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:59:55 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/2022 11:50 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:39:06 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
> >>>>>> that by simulation, and by simulations within
> >>>>>> simulations, non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in
> >>>>>> particular, it can be detected in the program used in the
> >>>>>> classical proof of incomputability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
> >>>>>> engineering* ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
> >>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
> >>>>> recursion" is an ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the
> >>>>> HP proofs you are attempting to refute.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call
> >>>> themselves a "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a
> >>>> whole other ballgame.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear. Also,
> >>> publishing to the CACM does not qualify you as a computer
> >>> scientist.
> >>>
> >>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your
> >>> "simulating halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to
> >>> address those flaws, you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit
> >>> over and over and over again.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
> >> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
> >> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
> >
> > WRONG. The primary flaw in your halt decider is the ASSUMPTION that
> > if P references H then P is non-halting,
>
> *THAT THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD IN NO ACTUAL REBUTTAL*
> The actual behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct
> x86 emulation of the first argument to H(P,P) by H conclusively
> proves that P specifies a non-halting sequence of instructions.
>
> *I just got it to compile and correctly run on Ubuntu 16.04 Linux
> today* This version is not currently published.
>
> > i.e. your halt decider does not
> > actually analyze P to determine whether it actually halts or not,
> > ergo your halt decider is nothing of the sort.
> >

And yet again you copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and
over again without actually addressing the flaws that people point out
to you over and over and over again.

/Flibble

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<20220814181737.000019db@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37622&group=comp.theory#37622

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in
CACM said about my work
Message-ID: <20220814181737.000019db@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 35
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:17:38 UTC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:17:37 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 2293
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:17 UTC

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:06:27 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/2022 12:00 PM, d thiebaud wrote:
> > On 8/14/22 11:14, olcott wrote:
> >> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
> >>
> >>      I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
> >>      that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
> >>      non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
> >>      it can be detected in the program used in the classical
> >>      proof of incomputability.
> >>
> >> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
> >> engineering* ?
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>
> >>
> > "Can _sometimes_ be detected". This does not affect the halting
> > problem.
>
> It would take me much longer than several human lifetimes to make an
> ALL KNOWING halt decider. That it refutes the conventional proofs is
> all that I was ever aiming for.

And it fails to refute the conventional proofs as has been pointed out
to you again and again and again. THERE IS NO INFINITE RECURSION IN
THE CONVENTIONAL PROOFS AND YOU ARE WRONG TO MAP YOUR DECIDER'S
INFINITE RECURSION TO A DECISION OF NON-HALTING.

/Flibble

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<ZbSdnYTJvKFSs2T_nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37624&group=comp.theory#37624

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:20:15 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:20:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814175035.00006ad4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<W1idnbMVTfJqtGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814181535.00006813@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220814181535.00006813@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <ZbSdnYTJvKFSs2T_nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kHXNqoAk+uDonOJgtyj/mJBxCi4pgVb65A4wovSU7lvtWFoTnWFogY+XuGkd2wQ/CwOhqyIR/mnoPWH!Lr6e7DAfRr5eiL/97mSa6A8NYWtYMQ7fjJ+znxgaYtNZjnMA5j7VC8ZAOcspRh1JGqlzAcwUNik=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:20 UTC

On 8/14/2022 12:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:59:55 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2022 11:50 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:39:06 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>>>> that by simulation, and by simulations within
>>>>>>>> simulations, non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in
>>>>>>>> particular, it can be detected in the program used in the
>>>>>>>> classical proof of incomputability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>>>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>>>>>> recursion" is an ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the
>>>>>>> HP proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call
>>>>>> themselves a "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a
>>>>>> whole other ballgame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear. Also,
>>>>> publishing to the CACM does not qualify you as a computer
>>>>> scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your
>>>>> "simulating halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to
>>>>> address those flaws, you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit
>>>>> over and over and over again.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
>>>> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
>>>> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
>>>
>>> WRONG. The primary flaw in your halt decider is the ASSUMPTION that
>>> if P references H then P is non-halting,
>>
>> *THAT THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD IN NO ACTUAL REBUTTAL*
>> The actual behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct
>> x86 emulation of the first argument to H(P,P) by H conclusively
>> proves that P specifies a non-halting sequence of instructions.
>>
>> *I just got it to compile and correctly run on Ubuntu 16.04 Linux
>> today* This version is not currently published.
>>
>>> i.e. your halt decider does not
>>> actually analyze P to determine whether it actually halts or not,
>>> ergo your halt decider is nothing of the sort.
>>>
>
> And yet again you copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and
> over again without actually addressing the flaws that people point out
> to you over and over and over again.
>
> /Flibble
>

All of the so-called "flaws" are merely the *strawman deception* and
dismissed on that basis. That some of my reviewers are simply not bright
enough to understand that the *strawman deception* is an error of
reasoning on their part is no actual rebuttal at all.

Because they are not bright enough to see this, they continue to present
the same incorrect reasoning again and again.

*straw man*
An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<e8dd0ae0-3b23-4d98-a723-f63e90f27a26n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37625&group=comp.theory#37625

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:d89:b0:479:6726:7f42 with SMTP id e9-20020a0562140d8900b0047967267f42mr10683491qve.20.1660497751162;
Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:1106:0:b0:324:752c:9af3 with SMTP id
6-20020a811106000000b00324752c9af3mr10335283ywr.307.1660497750935; Sun, 14
Aug 2022 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:470:1f23:2:a885:76a7:5cd2:5936;
posting-account=ZZETkAoAAACd4T-hRBh8m6HZV7_HBvWo
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:470:1f23:2:a885:76a7:5cd2:5936
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e8dd0ae0-3b23-4d98-a723-f63e90f27a26n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
From: skepdic...@gmail.com (Skep Dick)
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:22:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2543
 by: Skep Dick - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:22 UTC

On Sunday, 14 August 2022 at 19:06:35 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 12:00 PM, d thiebaud wrote:
> > On 8/14/22 11:14, olcott wrote:
> >> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
> >>
> >> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
> >> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
> >> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
> >> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
> >> proof of incomputability.
> >>
> >> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?
> >>
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>
> >>
> > "Can _sometimes_ be detected". This does not affect the halting problem.
> It would take me much longer than several human lifetimes to make an ALL
> KNOWING halt decider. That it refutes the conventional proofs is all
> that I was ever aiming for.
The conventional proofs are tackling the general case of the halting problem.
You are targeting a particlar case of a the halting problem.

I don't need to define the word "strawman" - I just need to point at what you are doing.

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<20220814182739.00004ea3@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37626&group=comp.theory#37626

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in
CACM said about my work
Message-ID: <20220814182739.00004ea3@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814175035.00006ad4@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<W1idnbMVTfJqtGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814181535.00006813@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<ZbSdnYTJvKFSs2T_nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 103
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:27:40 UTC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:27:39 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 5311
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:27 UTC

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:20:30 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/2022 12:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:59:55 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 8/14/2022 11:50 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 11:39:06 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in
> >>>>>>>> C*
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I believe I have learned something valuable from
> >>>>>>>> you: that by simulation, and by simulations within
> >>>>>>>> simulations, non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in
> >>>>>>>> particular, it can be detected in the program used in the
> >>>>>>>> classical proof of incomputability.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
> >>>>>>>> engineering* ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
> >>>>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
> >>>>>>> recursion" is an ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the
> >>>>>>> HP proofs you are attempting to refute.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call
> >>>>>> themselves a "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is
> >>>>>> a whole other ballgame.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear. Also,
> >>>>> publishing to the CACM does not qualify you as a computer
> >>>>> scientist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your
> >>>>> "simulating halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to
> >>>>> address those flaws, you simply copy/paste/edit the same old
> >>>>> shit over and over and over again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt
> >>>> decider, H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input
> >>>> specifies a non-terminating sequence of instructions.
> >>>
> >>> WRONG. The primary flaw in your halt decider is the ASSUMPTION
> >>> that if P references H then P is non-halting,
> >>
> >> *THAT THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD IN NO ACTUAL REBUTTAL*
> >> The actual behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct
> >> x86 emulation of the first argument to H(P,P) by H conclusively
> >> proves that P specifies a non-halting sequence of instructions.
> >>
> >> *I just got it to compile and correctly run on Ubuntu 16.04 Linux
> >> today* This version is not currently published.
> >>
> >>> i.e. your halt decider does not
> >>> actually analyze P to determine whether it actually halts or not,
> >>> ergo your halt decider is nothing of the sort.
> >>>
> >
> > And yet again you copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over
> > and over again without actually addressing the flaws that people
> > point out to you over and over and over again.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> All of the so-called "flaws" are merely the *strawman deception* and
> dismissed on that basis. That some of my reviewers are simply not
> bright enough to understand that the *strawman deception* is an error
> of reasoning on their part is no actual rebuttal at all.
>
> Because they are not bright enough to see this, they continue to
> present the same incorrect reasoning again and again.
>
> *straw man*
> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it
> is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man

QED

/Flibble

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<tdbbrk$37n8b$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37628&group=comp.theory#37628

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: richard....@gmail.com (Richard Harnden)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:36:52 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 4
Message-ID: <tdbbrk$37n8b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: nospam.harnden@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:36:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="232510a59400790e848089887d01983b";
logging-data="3398923"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18K0vKaIW9Cf/pqlEbCm4dWyxYJUoGfSdA="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/1k11tsgQ0rsvs5xrJG+VpQ0ess=
In-Reply-To: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 by: Richard Harnden - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:36 UTC

On 14/08/2022 16:14, olcott wrote:
> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*

Read again, I correct more about ...

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<UPicnfoStPnVrmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37631&group=comp.theory#37631

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:39:19 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:39:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e8dd0ae0-3b23-4d98-a723-f63e90f27a26n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e8dd0ae0-3b23-4d98-a723-f63e90f27a26n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <UPicnfoStPnVrmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-I8ykf6/gXd9sRMkUOr/68lTMLTDziEQj8rG1xo4/eWTMqWQ7WGwhG5FiS0m4J3ydnoSc1cEhJBTHiHq!dZClnotnYs17vm+W8QbwI7eAhIGVyUC8siK5dt30M49ls4IGndla9HN8ZfVAVX1rDLco0LC3Xyg=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:39 UTC

On 8/14/2022 12:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Sunday, 14 August 2022 at 19:06:35 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/14/2022 12:00 PM, d thiebaud wrote:
>>> On 8/14/22 11:14, olcott wrote:
>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>
>>>> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>> proof of incomputability.
>>>>
>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "Can _sometimes_ be detected". This does not affect the halting problem.
>> It would take me much longer than several human lifetimes to make an ALL
>> KNOWING halt decider. That it refutes the conventional proofs is all
>> that I was ever aiming for.
> The conventional proofs are tackling the general case of the halting problem.
> You are targeting a particlar case of a the halting problem.
>
> I don't need to define the word "strawman" - I just need to point at what you are doing.
>

The HP proofs conclude that the HP cannot be solved on the basis of the
impossibility of correctly determining the halt status of the input that
H does correctly determine specifies a non-halting sequence of
instructions, thus eliminating the basis of and thus refuting these proofs.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<TtydnTdACM8QqWT_nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37632&group=comp.theory#37632

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:44:45 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:45:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tdbbrk$37n8b$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tdbbrk$37n8b$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <TtydnTdACM8QqWT_nZ2dnZfqlJzNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 27
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3PPS+m3OO4XZG4Kritr9bM9mo6+gpFHAMLLHGe8jP0wkWY/8qJjFrcgUg+u23h/0fN2R7Jv8s+0YsXJ!PF2a9wlmuiQRWlWE9HTvbDGiaDSb1hvcwMqJL5nlXUh4kH4IAym97KbpvlJCYRkBbRoBZceW0ik=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 17:45 UTC

On 8/14/2022 12:36 PM, Richard Harnden wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 16:14, olcott wrote:
>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>
> Read again, I correct more about ...

I cannot effectively reply to your half of a sentence.

I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
it can be detected in the program used in the classical
proof of incomputability.

*Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<MZaKK.714562$5fVf.88551@fx09.iad>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37635&group=comp.theory#37635

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.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/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <MZaKK.714562$5fVf.88551@fx09.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: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:16:11 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4550
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:16 UTC

On 8/14/22 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>
>>>>>        I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>        that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>>        non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>>        it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>>        proof of incomputability.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>>> recursion" is an ERROR.  There is no infinite recursion in the HP
>>>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
>>> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
>>> ballgame.
>>>
>>
>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear.  Also, publishing to
>> the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
>>
>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your "simulating
>> halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to address those flaws,
>> you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and over
>> again.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
>
> All of the so-called "flaws" were only instances of the *straw man*
> deception in that they referred to something besides the actual behavior
> of the actual input as measured by the correct x86 emulation of the
> first argument to H(P,P) by H.
>
> *straw man*
> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is
> easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
>
>

No, your proof is invalid first because it answers to a Strawman, and
not the ACTUAL halting question, as you acknoledge that H(P,P) isn;t
answering about the behavior of P(P) as required but something else you
can't quite define.

Remember, the TRUE DEFINITION of a Halt Decider:

H(M,x) accepts if M(x) Halts in a finite number of steps, and
H(M,x) rejects if M*x) never Halts, even after an unbounded number of steps.

Since that isn't the test you apply, and even say it CAN'T apply to your
H, you have just proved that you H isn'ta Halt Decider.

Note, from an ACTUAL software endineering perspective, the input to H in
H(P,P) actually does represent the computaion P(P) as that is what the
code is (when you look at ALL the code).

It has been noted that H itself DOESN'T do a correct x86 emulation of
the first arguement it has been given, as it does not correctly emulate
the call H instruction, and the behavior that it generates.

Thus your logic is based on UNSOUND logic.

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<iracneL3RfIQomT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37639&group=comp.theory#37639

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:31:41 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:32:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MZaKK.714562$5fVf.88551@fx09.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <MZaKK.714562$5fVf.88551@fx09.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <iracneL3RfIQomT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 87
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Fjqxp2gI/pEfNCq83qrmg4bOcoOKvVoc+nVaeKf+72prls2tGEmw8xSLLUFHAbE8Sg7OPgt6GaEu4iV!rGht39uYiEss3SgfohfU6nH6cDawsYj0Ds0soS8DcXPHvvlr5wbhABczRt5ZDa9rZCwQdnKAIsA=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:32 UTC

On 8/14/2022 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/14/22 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>>        that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>>>        non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>>>        it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>>>        proof of incomputability.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>>>> recursion" is an ERROR.  There is no infinite recursion in the HP
>>>>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
>>>> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
>>>> ballgame.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear.  Also, publishing to
>>> the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
>>>
>>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your "simulating
>>> halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to address those flaws,
>>> you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and over
>>> again.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
>> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
>> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
>>
>> All of the so-called "flaws" were only instances of the *straw man*
>> deception in that they referred to something besides the actual
>> behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct x86 emulation
>> of the first argument to H(P,P) by H.
>>
>> *straw man*
>> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it
>> is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
>> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
>>
>>
>
> No, your proof is invalid first because it answers to a Strawman, and
> not the ACTUAL halting question,

It <is> correct software engineering in that H(P,P) does correctly
determine that its correct x86 emulation of its first argument does
specify a non-halting sequence of instructions.

When the halting function is defined such that H is required to map
behavior other than the behavior of the correct simulation of the first
argument to H(P,P) by H, THEN HALTING FUNCTION IS DEFINED INCORRECTLY.

All halt deciders must map their actual inputs to an accept or reject
state based on the actual behavior that its actually specified by this
input. The actual behavior of the actual input is (by definition)
correctly measured by the correct simulation of this input by H.

When the HALTING FUNCTION CONTRADICTS THIS IT IS WRONG

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<GzbKK.672111$vAW9.112470@fx10.iad>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37642&group=comp.theory#37642

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.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/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MZaKK.714562$5fVf.88551@fx09.iad>
<iracneL3RfIQomT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <iracneL3RfIQomT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <GzbKK.672111$vAW9.112470@fx10.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: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:56:38 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5591
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:56 UTC

On 8/14/22 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/14/22 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>>>        that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>>>>        non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>>>>        it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>>>>        proof of incomputability.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>>>>> recursion" is an ERROR.  There is no infinite recursion in the HP
>>>>>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
>>>>> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
>>>>> ballgame.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear.  Also, publishing to
>>>> the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
>>>>
>>>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your "simulating
>>>> halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to address those flaws,
>>>> you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and over
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
>>> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
>>> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
>>>
>>> All of the so-called "flaws" were only instances of the *straw man*
>>> deception in that they referred to something besides the actual
>>> behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct x86 emulation
>>> of the first argument to H(P,P) by H.
>>>
>>> *straw man*
>>> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it
>>> is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
>>> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, your proof is invalid first because it answers to a Strawman, and
>> not the ACTUAL halting question,
>
> It <is> correct software engineering in that H(P,P) does correctly
> determine that its correct x86 emulation of its first argument does
> specify a non-halting sequence of instructions.

Nope. First arguement represents a HALTING computation, because H is
wrong about it.

>
> When the halting function is defined such that H is required to map
> behavior other than the behavior of the correct simulation of the first
> argument to H(P,P) by H, THEN HALTING FUNCTION IS DEFINED INCORRECTLY.

But it does map the behavior of the CORRECT (and COMPLETE) simulation of
the input, just not the INCORRECT SIMULATION that H did.

INCORRECT because H simulates H(P,P) to never return when in actuality
it returns 0.

>
> All halt deciders must map their actual inputs to an accept or reject
> state based on the actual behavior that its actually specified by this
> input. The actual behavior of the actual input is (by definition)
> correctly measured by the correct simulation of this input by H.
>
> When the HALTING FUNCTION CONTRADICTS THIS IT IS WRONG
>
>

No, you have the wrong definiton of correct simulation.

Since H doesn't actually DO a correct simulation, anything based on it
being correct is unsound.

The actual behavior of the input to H(P,P) is defined to be UTM(P,P)
which is defined to be P(P), which halts given that H(P,P) returns 0.

DEFINITION.

Any arguement otherwise is just based on LIES and STUPIDITY.

YOU are the one that is WRONG, because you refuse to learn what is right.

You are either a pathological liar or a totally incompetent and ignorant
person.

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<O7-dndeszZ1M2GT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37643&group=comp.theory#37643

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:58:25 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:58:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814181737.000019db@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220814181737.000019db@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <O7-dndeszZ1M2GT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Qa1tzCsOPLPS2cV+rNAbqMnnQ0xLMq8ncWF4MHEOkskwfi9iC91uAHbLol3Tav71qClg8vbkkW6fBNr!vrwPpNTb2mosKb1vaD21QScm5A7kZ4B1GIAm54bc73ng4337gqQ9Zg8W455J1aAwKFGensNGH+A=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 18:58 UTC

On 8/14/2022 12:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:06:27 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2022 12:00 PM, d thiebaud wrote:
>>> On 8/14/22 11:14, olcott wrote:
>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>
>>>>      I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>      that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>      non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>      it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>      proof of incomputability.
>>>>
>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "Can _sometimes_ be detected". This does not affect the halting
>>> problem.
>>
>> It would take me much longer than several human lifetimes to make an
>> ALL KNOWING halt decider. That it refutes the conventional proofs is
>> all that I was ever aiming for.
>
> And it fails to refute the conventional proofs as has been pointed out
> to you again and again and again. THERE IS NO INFINITE RECURSION IN
> THE CONVENTIONAL PROOFS AND YOU ARE WRONG TO MAP YOUR DECIDER'S
> INFINITE RECURSION TO A DECISION OF NON-HALTING.
>
> /Flibble
>
>

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

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

When H is a simulating halt decider (that simulates its input with an
x86 emulator until it correctly matches a non-halting behavior pattern)
everyone that is sufficiently technically competent will understand that
this execution trace is correct:

(a) H(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
(b) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
(c) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
(d) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)...
*Until H aborts its simulation*

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<O7-dndaszZ0r22T_nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37645&group=comp.theory#37645

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:02:14 +0000
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:02:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MZaKK.714562$5fVf.88551@fx09.iad>
<iracneL3RfIQomT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<GzbKK.672111$vAW9.112470@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <GzbKK.672111$vAW9.112470@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <O7-dndaszZ0r22T_nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 84
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-rIbw7YUw+se00rnWrIloF+XcP0uTJgid/7Jui/3yZUK7aatHViCiRejs+OIG1RMjfo2HdOiXRGEhZTq!EfhqgPzE6hY9uxaXv0oFnf9+ZzCYLTN5xJgxZLGE+by1qYxqEwdeiE5ecK/b24jFUT6ca+aIC2I=
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
 by: olcott - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:02 UTC

On 8/14/2022 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 8/14/22 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/14/2022 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/14/22 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>        I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>>>>        that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>>>>>        non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>>>>>        it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>>>>>        proof of incomputability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>>>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>>>>>> recursion" is an ERROR.  There is no infinite recursion in the HP
>>>>>>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
>>>>>> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
>>>>>> ballgame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear.  Also, publishing to
>>>>> the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your "simulating
>>>>> halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to address those flaws,
>>>>> you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and over
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
>>>> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
>>>> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
>>>>
>>>> All of the so-called "flaws" were only instances of the *straw man*
>>>> deception in that they referred to something besides the actual
>>>> behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct x86
>>>> emulation of the first argument to H(P,P) by H.
>>>>
>>>> *straw man*
>>>> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because
>>>> it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
>>>> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, your proof is invalid first because it answers to a Strawman, and
>>> not the ACTUAL halting question,
>>
>> It <is> correct software engineering in that H(P,P) does correctly
>> determine that its correct x86 emulation of its first argument does
>> specify a non-halting sequence of instructions.
>
> Nope. First arguement represents a HALTING computation, because H is
> wrong about it.
>
"represents" is a weak relationship is not the same as "specifies".
The cross symbol "represents" Christ, it is not Christ himself.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<8GbKK.714564$5fVf.67528@fx09.iad>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37646&group=comp.theory#37646

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.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/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tdb9n6$r9q$1@gioia.aioe.org> <vECdnRNcyZ_itmT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814181737.000019db@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<O7-dndeszZ1M2GT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <O7-dndeszZ1M2GT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <8GbKK.714564$5fVf.67528@fx09.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: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:03:29 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3886
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:03 UTC

On 8/14/22 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 12:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 12:06:27 -0500
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/14/2022 12:00 PM, d thiebaud wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/22 11:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>
>>>>>       I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>       that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>>       non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>>       it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>>       proof of incomputability.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> "Can _sometimes_ be detected". This does not affect the halting
>>>> problem.
>>>
>>> It would take me much longer than several human lifetimes to make an
>>> ALL KNOWING halt decider. That it refutes the conventional proofs is
>>> all that I was ever aiming for.
>>
>> And it fails to refute the conventional proofs as has been pointed out
>> to you again and again and again.  THERE IS NO INFINITE RECURSION IN
>> THE CONVENTIONAL PROOFS AND YOU ARE WRONG TO MAP YOUR DECIDER'S
>> INFINITE RECURSION TO A DECISION OF NON-HALTING.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>>
>
> void P(ptr x)
> {
>   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>   if (Halt_Status)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
>   return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> }
>
> When H is a simulating halt decider (that simulates its input with an
> x86 emulator until it correctly matches a non-halting behavior pattern)
> everyone that is sufficiently technically competent will understand that
> this execution trace is correct:
>
> (a) H(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
> (b) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
> (c) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)
> (d) that simulates P(P) that calls a simulated H(P,P)...
> *Until H aborts its simulation*
>

Except that isn't the trace we get.

(b) never happens because H aborts before we get there.

That means that the CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) will see a
simuated P(P) calling a simulated H(P,P) which simulates P(P) which is
simulated to call H(P,P) causing the first simulated H(P,P) to return to
the first simulation of P(P) the value 0 and it halting.

Thus the CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) does Halt.

Just not the simulation of that input by H, which make an INCORRECT
simulation by simulating a call to H(P,P) as presumed to never return.

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<aKbKK.714565$5fVf.433277@fx09.iad>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37648&group=comp.theory#37648

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.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/91.12.0
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM
said about my work
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220814162208.000028a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<Z9GdnfI_ou5kimT_nZ2dnZfqlJxh4p2d@giganews.com>
<20220814165151.0000563d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<vBmdne8a49KLuGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MZaKK.714562$5fVf.88551@fx09.iad>
<iracneL3RfIQomT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<GzbKK.672111$vAW9.112470@fx10.iad>
<O7-dndaszZ0r22T_nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <O7-dndaszZ0r22T_nZ2dnZfqlJ9g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <aKbKK.714565$5fVf.433277@fx09.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: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:07:50 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4932
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:07 UTC

On 8/14/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 8/14/22 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2022 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/22 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:43:04 -0500
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2022 10:22 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>        I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
>>>>>>>>>        that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
>>>>>>>>>        non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
>>>>>>>>>        it can be detected in the program used in the classical
>>>>>>>>>        proof of incomputability.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
>>>>>>>>> engineering* ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your
>>>>>>>> halting decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite
>>>>>>>> recursion" is an ERROR.  There is no infinite recursion in the HP
>>>>>>>> proofs you are attempting to refute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone (especially those that use fake names) can call themselves a
>>>>>>> "computer scientist". To get published in CACM is a whole other
>>>>>>> ballgame.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using fake names on Usenet is quite common, dear.  Also,
>>>>>> publishing to
>>>>>> the CACM does not qualify you as a computer scientist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This computer scientists has pointed out the flaws in your
>>>>>> "simulating
>>>>>> halt decider" multiple times and you have yet to address those flaws,
>>>>>> you simply copy/paste/edit the same old shit over and over and over
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no flaws in the software engineering of my halt decider,
>>>>> H(P,P) does correctly determine that its input specifies a
>>>>> non-terminating sequence of instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>> All of the so-called "flaws" were only instances of the *straw man*
>>>>> deception in that they referred to something besides the actual
>>>>> behavior of the actual input as measured by the correct x86
>>>>> emulation of the first argument to H(P,P) by H.
>>>>>
>>>>> *straw man*
>>>>> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because
>>>>> it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
>>>>> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, your proof is invalid first because it answers to a Strawman,
>>>> and not the ACTUAL halting question,
>>>
>>> It <is> correct software engineering in that H(P,P) does correctly
>>> determine that its correct x86 emulation of its first argument does
>>> specify a non-halting sequence of instructions.
>>
>> Nope. First arguement represents a HALTING computation, because H is
>> wrong about it.
>>
> "represents" is a weak relationship is not the same as "specifies".
> The cross symbol "represents" Christ, it is not Christ himself.
>

RED HERRING.

The first arguement also SPECIFED a HALTING COMPUTATION as it is exactly
the algorithm of P which when applied to the input P will halt when run.

You still show you don't know what "correct" means.

Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in CACM said about my work

<20220814201431.00002067@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=37649&group=comp.theory#37649

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Here is what a computer scientist that has been published in
CACM said about my work
Message-ID: <20220814201431.00002067@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <VUmdneqWu_jdjGT_nZ2dnZfqlJ_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:14:32 UTC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 20:14:31 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1668
 by: Mr Flibble - Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:14 UTC

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:14:28 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> *This is refers to H(P,P)==0 where H and P are functions in C*
>
> I believe I have learned something valuable from you:
> that by simulation, and by simulations within simulations,
> non-halting can sometimes be detected, and in particular,
> it can be detected in the program used in the classical
> proof of incomputability.
>
> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering*
> ?
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
>

I am also a computer scientist and I am telling you that your halting
decider reporting non-halting when it enters "infinite recursion" is an
ERROR. There is no infinite recursion in the HP proofs you are
attempting to refute.

/Flibble

Pages:12345678910
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.8
clearnet tor