Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Happy Thanksgiving to all

SubjectAuthor
* Happy Thanksgiving to allolcott
`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to allolcott
 +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to allolcott
 |+- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to allolcott
 |`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to allolcott
 | `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to allolcott
 |  +- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (over your head)olcott
 |  `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)olcott
 |   +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)olcott
 |   |`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |   | +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)Mr Flibble
 |   | |`- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |   | +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |   | |+* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |   | ||`- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |   | |`- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |   | `- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |   `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)Jeff Barnett
 |    `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |     `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |      +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |      |`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)Jeff Barnett
 |      | `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |      |  `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |      |   +- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |      |   `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |      |    `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)olcott
 |      |     +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at the switch)olcott
 |      |     |+* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theolcott
 |      |     ||`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theChris M. Thomasson
 |      |     || `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theJeff Barnett
 |      |     ||  `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theChris M. Thomasson
 |      |     ||   `- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theJeff Barnett
 |      |     |+* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at the switch)olcott
 |      |     ||`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theKaz Kylheku
 |      |     || `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theolcott
 |      |     ||  `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theKaz Kylheku
 |      |     ||   +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theolcott
 |      |     ||   |`- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at the switch)olcott
 |      |     ||   `- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(asleep at theolcott
 |      |     |`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(Numbskull?)olcott
 |      |     | +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)[ Ben is a Numbskull !!! olcott
 |      |     | |`* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)[ Ben is a Numbskullolcott
 |      |     | | `- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)[ Ben is a Numbskullolcott
 |      |     | +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(Numbskull?)olcott
 |      |     | |`* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz HP proofolcott
 |      |     | | `* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz HP proofolcott
 |      |     | |  `* Re: Refuting the Peter Linz HP proofolcott
 |      |     | |   `- Re: Refuting the Peter Linz HP proofolcott
 |      |     | +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)[ Effectiveolcott
 |      |     | |+- Re: Local halt decider enabled[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |`* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | | `* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  +- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  +* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  |+- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  |+* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||`* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  || +* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  || |`- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  || `* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||  `* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||   `* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||    `* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     +- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     +- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     +* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |`* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     | `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  +* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]Mr Flibble
 |      |     | |  ||     |  |`* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  | `- Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]Jeff Barnett
 |      |     | |  ||     |  +* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  |+* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  ||`* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]Kaz Kylheku
 |      |     | |  ||     |  || `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  ||  `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]Kaz Kylheku
 |      |     | |  ||     |  ||   `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  ||    `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]Kaz Kylheku
 |      |     | |  ||     |  ||     `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ divide by zero error returnsolcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  ||      `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ divide by zero errorKaz Kylheku
 |      |     | |  ||     |  ||       `- Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ divide by zero error returnsolcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  |+- Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Logical Necessity ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  |`* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Recursion with TMs ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  | `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Recursion with TMs ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  |  `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Recursion with TMs ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |  |   `- Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Recursion with TMs ]Mr Flibble
 |      |     | |  ||     |  `* Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Dishonest dodges ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     |   `- Re: Refutation of Peter Linz HP proof [ Dishonest dodges ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||     `* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Halts == Simulate ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||      `* Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Halts == Simulate ]olcott
 |      |     | |  ||       `- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Halts == Simulate ]olcott
 |      |     | |  |`- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  +- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | |  `- Re: Renaming DebugTrace() to H or Halts[ Effective Presentation ]olcott
 |      |     | `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(Numbskull?)olcott
 |      |     |  `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(Numbskull?)olcott
 |      |     |   +* Re: Both invocations of Confound_Halts() are decided consistentlyolcott
 |      |     |   |`- Re: Both invocations of Confound_Halts() are decided consistentlyolcott
 |      |     |   `- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)(Over Ben's head)olcott
 |      |     +* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Ben is proven wrong by the actual facts)olcott
 |      |     +- Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Ben is proven wrong by the actualolcott
 |      |     `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Ben is proven wrong by the actual facts)olcott
 |      `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)Jeff Barnett
 `* Re: Happy Thanksgiving to allKaz Kylheku

Pages:123456789101112131415161718
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving to all
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:22 UTC
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:21:57 -0600
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
X-Mozilla-News-Host: news://news.giganews.com:119
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Subject: Happy Thanksgiving to all
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 13:22:03 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 6
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-husQaod3MX1zPp/839+XquP1ct2ZTsDdM75x4BxJ2trem8ZPqG11uO/6KvS1v2m6DKWZa2yrv2FutiS!WplFU8J22eimmFU0PaDe6PBcyfcXYD7tnrKCpSKKEGpjdapD6eg4e3mZg7jF9QAo25X1brsij0f7!Vg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 1291
View all headers

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 19:20 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:20:26 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 13:20:34 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 42
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pgY49R/qFyOUACXqrQyMJ6/hSfTwP/l6TKQuyv5MGcg6EyKP+LzYqWnwegzZXgGnQOod150D60dpPGX!LWG7fDj6PPYgjmbnnPkOhi0akF7LoccMXhSG5GgIY6vldJxaOEmO9kRx9Eba+Ojw5z3ttWiZ5L1e!dw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2871
View all headers
On 11/27/2020 12:51 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2020-11-27, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
On 11/27/2020 7:03 AM, Leo wrote:
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
Did you just claim to have the copyrights to an empty message?

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from
mediocre minds." Einstein
Is this a random quote you like, or do you truly think this is what is
happening to you when you announce bogus proofs about computer science
concepts every other day?

-- Leo

You can found out when you try to point to any actual error in my work.

It would be more efficient to record the calendar days on which such
a thing /doesn't/ happen here.


There are many people that believe that I made mistakes yet none of these beliefs is sustained by the actual facts.

One guy still does not fully understand that an infinitely recursive function invocation never returns any value to its caller.

It has been 39 continuous days of review and no one has correctly pointed out a single material error with my halting problem refutation work.

I used terminology in non-standard ways. I had a quite a few typos. I initially made a minor coding error at least once, maybe twice.

There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 23:17 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:17:28 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:17:35 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-MiJGeLkh89B/76SOdFVKIY4HQTP21E+GXGI+KuAalI/Lqz9QB5qqyLthoOnTdIoiTUlSBMUgK3I71G8!to4EzDNuLCgDrqZQunTvuv6JKwxGDFTJGbMjcY2Ux8uY1FIz7VlK/veAkHDWLhiz1Naw8qhlE+6P!tg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2717
View all headers
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.
 

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

In many of these cases the rebuttal was the straw-man error of reasoning.

In one case Ben did not realize that he was disagreeing with himself.

One guy still does not understand that an infinitely recursive invocation would never return a value to its caller.

This is the most difficult rebuttal of what may have otherwise seemed to be a correct rebuttal:

UTM1(<TM1>, DATA) ≡ TM1(DATA)

UTM1(<UTM1>, (<TM1>, DATA)) ≡ TM1(TM1(DATA))



--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 23:57 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:57:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cf3926ca-c63d-46a6-98b8-97b913e9a730n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:57:39 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <cf3926ca-c63d-46a6-98b8-97b913e9a730n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1POdnU8em8n2D1zCnZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 95
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ztfOZGASevQ5Y0CkW1LPkafzik0goayzDLvOuBNhXthWXILACTWW+arms0Oo4b8IHsFcdZRnZZ5V7cf!XdMkX7XZRpFnviOTWCwCeslQU1xKXEczcMG7PQPpM5ubAQr3CYYLTnt7hfgk4LZ3+sZKpex+dJHo!NA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5610
View all headers
On 11/27/2020 5:36 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 23:17:35 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.


In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

In many of these cases the rebuttal was the straw-man error of reasoning.

In one case Ben did not realize that he was disagreeing with himself.

One guy still does not understand that an infinitely recursive
invocation would never return a value to its caller.

This is the most difficult rebuttal of what may have otherwise seemed to
be a correct rebuttal:

UTM1(<TM1>, DATA) ≡ TM1(DATA)

UTM1(<UTM1>, (<TM1>, DATA)) ≡ TM1(TM1(DATA))

A halt decider is not a universal Turing machine.

That is a separate point that is not a part of this point.
Mike does not seem to understand that nested emulation is computationally equivalent to nested invocation.

That's one mistake you make. Your attempted halt decider seems to be a near
universal Turing machine, but it has "abort" logic. The abort logic is itself
fed to the halt decider when the halt decider is called upon itself.

You dismissed this objection as "incoherent" last time I made it.


When this is the halt deciding criteria:
Any input (TMD / DATA) that would never halt unless its simulator
stopped simulating it expresses behavior that is not halting behavior.

The simulator would make sure not to look at its own execution, it would only look at the execution of the simulated code:

Output_Debug_Trace() [00010bc4]  size(148)  capacity(65536)
[000005a4](01)  55                  push ebp
[000005a5](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
[000005a7](01)  51                  push ecx
[000005a8](07)  c745fc74050000      mov [ebp-04],00000574
[000005af](03)  8b45fc              mov eax,[ebp-04]
[000005b2](01)  50                  push eax
[000005b3](03)  8b4dfc              mov ecx,[ebp-04]
[000005b6](01)  51                  push ecx
[000005b7](05)  e898fdffff          call 00000354   ----CALL[00000354]
[00000574](01)  55                  push ebp
[00000575](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
[00000577](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000578](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000057b](01)  50                  push eax
[0000057c](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000057f](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000580](05)  e8cffdffff          call 00000354   ----CALL[00000354]
[00000574](01)  55                  push ebp
[00000575](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
[00000577](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000578](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000057b](01)  50                  push eax
[0000057c](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000057f](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000580](05)  e8cffdffff          call 00000354   ----CALL[00000354]

_H_Hat()
[00000574](01)  55                  push ebp
[00000575](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
[00000577](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000578](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000057b](01)  50                  push eax
[0000057c](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000057f](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000580](05)  e8cffdffff          call 00000354


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 14:21 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:21:21 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:21:29 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 119
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UJX5lRQyejSNr3nvG3SsE5qkT3k3Dpx+gcywEzn/S8r+EMSQbf+8vwJNCor5iR8RT4e+HaMnROMqzBg!eHXZL67tRa1a1/sd1JBOju+Fgs08/LbhF3KmiwEB58LSV3qUn+ltUObcS+IPnUtemJv37ytEsdv/!uA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6439
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.
   

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
    u32 P = ...;
    u32 I = ...;
    u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally proved this.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Aborted = DebugTrace(P, P);


_H_Hat()
[00000517](01)  55                  push ebp
[00000518](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
[0000051a](01)  51                  push ecx
[0000051b](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000051e](01)  50                  push eax
[0000051f](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000522](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000523](05)  e8cfffffff          call 000004f7


Output_Debug_Trace() [00010afc]  size(180)  capacity(65536)
   [00000547](01)  55                  push ebp
   [00000548](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
   [0000054a](01)  51                  push ecx
   [0000054b](07)  c745fc17050000      mov [ebp-04],00000517
   [00000552](03)  8b45fc              mov eax,[ebp-04]
   [00000555](01)  50                  push eax
   [00000556](03)  8b4dfc              mov ecx,[ebp-04]
   [00000559](01)  51                  push ecx
--[0000055a](05)  e898ffffff          call 000004f7
   [00000517](01)  55                  push ebp H_Hat(1)
   [00000518](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp       H_Hat(2)
   [0000051a](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(3)
   [0000051b](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(4)
   [0000051e](01)  50                  push eax          H_Hat(5)
   [0000051f](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(6)
   [00000522](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(7)
--[00000523](05)  e8cfffffff          call 000004f7     H_Hat(8)
   [00000517](01)  55                  push ebp          H_Hat(1)
   [00000518](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp       H_Hat(2)
   [0000051a](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(3)
   [0000051b](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(4)
   [0000051e](01)  50                  push eax          H_Hat(5)
   [0000051f](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(6)
   [00000522](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(7)
--[00000523](05)  e8cfffffff          call 000004f7     H_Hat(8)



--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 14:40 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:40:13 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:40:21 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 153
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-bY5XYb0u5wT4sTxWlRdpS0iQ5bBgnUU/GTjeqVuyXdgGdFWPn0DkpPH3AtVJCMwv60OrcEXBzI5xjKB!9+bjM5gVt7/WlDUWlRNvOSFHspsgCTNCenzIORRiMO/3XcUJj6AdwD8/WnMS10cxgeafyPDSMAS8!nA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8423
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.
    

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
     u32 P = ...;
     u32 I = ...;
     u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately stops.

Perhaps

Thank you for your clarification.

Your System is Broken.

Note, I never mentioned H_Hat, so you seem to be in some other strange
world, but at least you have clairified that your system doesn't work.

That, or maybe you aren't actually reading replies, which is why you
never answer the questions.


void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Aborted = DebugTrace(P, P);


_H_Hat()
[00000517](01)  55                  push ebp
[00000518](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
[0000051a](01)  51                  push ecx
[0000051b](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000051e](01)  50                  push eax
[0000051f](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000522](01)  51                  push ecx
[00000523](05)  e8cfffffff          call 000004f7


Output_Debug_Trace() [00010afc]  size(180)  capacity(65536)
   [00000547](01)  55                  push ebp
   [00000548](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp
   [0000054a](01)  51                  push ecx
   [0000054b](07)  c745fc17050000      mov [ebp-04],00000517
   [00000552](03)  8b45fc              mov eax,[ebp-04]
   [00000555](01)  50                  push eax
   [00000556](03)  8b4dfc              mov ecx,[ebp-04]
   [00000559](01)  51                  push ecx
--[0000055a](05)  e898ffffff          call 000004f7
   [00000517](01)  55                  push ebp        H_Hat(1)
   [00000518](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp       H_Hat(2)
   [0000051a](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(3)
   [0000051b](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(4)
   [0000051e](01)  50                  push eax          H_Hat(5)
   [0000051f](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(6)
   [00000522](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(7)
--[00000523](05)  e8cfffffff          call 000004f7     H_Hat(8)
   [00000517](01)  55                  push ebp          H_Hat(1)
   [00000518](02)  8bec                mov ebp,esp       H_Hat(2)
   [0000051a](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(3)
   [0000051b](03)  8b4508              mov eax,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(4)
   [0000051e](01)  50                  push eax          H_Hat(5)
   [0000051f](03)  8b4d08              mov ecx,[ebp+08]  H_Hat(6)
   [00000522](01)  51                  push ecx          H_Hat(7)
--[00000523](05)  e8cfffffff          call 000004f7     H_Hat(8)






--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (over your head)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:23 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 12:23:15 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (over your head)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 12:23:23 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <rqWdne_6MOMOCF_CnZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 124
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-aC87uBEIuFAmT/9Jm22kjjap9QJn1QSJ2dAeJqM/jmW+PalH8dcGabRoyaFu8efw0nSKg//U3V8+8sQ!+n5yer+Ta3MUOZHAHl5Zb+Zygo13dWm+/inaHwacsyc8wMMjBlGR3JppVR7TNhzt+dR/Jt5sj06I!Qg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6608
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.
     

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
      u32 P = ...;
      u32 I = ...;
      u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely
recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the
execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just
like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few
more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately
stops.

Perhaps


Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

I will ask you why, if it will NEVER return the aborting result, does it
even claim to do so?


This seems to be over your head:

On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
 > halted is indeed a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is indeed a halting computation.

Thus dividing inputs into not-halting and halting as the actual halting problem requires.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:46 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 12:45:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 12:46:06 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 126
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zYBZuRqyvWGjp1qZYpftNpEXKyJNVpPsfviSWP3NTcdhzcL41Hguo28I+Z1U6WK0IsFxCMUy3zlvbb+!BhCO9bE4whd0se+H36Sx9QQjGIXPVnSw8pB0Ubu3jB6WWLpq7QFFSVP/RFvs/eukS2TYPEb8vQfE!+g==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6786
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.
     

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
      u32 P = ...;
      u32 I = ...;
      u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely
recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the
execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just
like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few
more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately
stops.

Perhaps


Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM

On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
 > halted is indeed a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is indeed a halting computation.

Thus dividing inputs into not-halting and halting as the actual halting problem requires.

THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD
THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD
THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:27 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 13:27:08 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20201127104500.114@kylheku.com> <Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com> <Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad> <Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad> <Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad> <iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad> <Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad> <4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 13:27:17 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <X5SdnfRBY9oROV_CnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HyYExs7z/L+zM8RAqnT7zi/nzGy3LBh09AZHlgcBwzIh3yeQ8qETklRKZpu2AVFNl9AIQVP2J1PpE6L!p5Zvh2ufK+7xuznix0VQ+5DqzIc+QKlT4gUBSphK9uTjnomhf0KYzx5q8J61UqvAPuwP4QQ/VFcO!Bg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3211
X-Received-Bytes: 3472
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2676281311
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM


DO YOU ACCEPT THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM?

I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID



--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)
From: Jeff Barnett
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:27 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (Over your head)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 12:27:41 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 178
Message-ID: <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:27:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b9c9ba67888e5d81708884421aa9ad90";
logging-data="17638"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tHFdWJMN/fFIwPjHObJBTaf1ANwCi8P8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:43pkuaV5guj2SFA3Vgmma09Adok=
In-Reply-To: <4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
      u32 P = ...;
      u32 I = ...;
      u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely
recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the
execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just
like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few
more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately
stops.

Perhaps


Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM

The terrible twos again. Can't control self, tantrum again. Recommend isolate in your room.

On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
 > halted is indeed a non-halting computation.

So far so good.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is indeed a halting computation.

Thus dividing inputs into not-halting and halting as the actual halting problem requires.

Of course there is way more to the problem:
1) Must show that stopping a computation only happens to non halting
    code.
2) Must show that any actual halting computation isn't stopped or is at
    least reported not to need stopping.
3) Must show that all non halting code is stopped (in finite time).

Now as everyone but you know, 1 has been partially justified and 2 and 3 have been completely and totally ignored. So you are not close to a proof. In fact you wouldn't know a proof if you saw it in six feet high letters.

THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD
THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD
THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD

Since you have no proof in sight, you owe Richard an apology. The other point is that any proof of anything is certainly over your head.

And, by the way, this is your second lexically tantrum in one message. Give your self a time out, go to your room and chill, contemplate on the fact that every time you engage in such infantile behavior, you have been wrong: you are batting zero for over a thousand. By now you should realize that when you hit that repeat paste thing, you are trying to cover your ignorance and lack of clear thinking. So once again I suggest that you apologize to Richard for not wearing your big boy pants.
--
Jeff Barnett



Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:40 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 13:40:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 13:40:13 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 183
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3HpDgXO11TRTTcdy/RKKKtVjP2e5fAVM9MUjRt/9bH0rzclNFNRG2qb78IktkcCHYJPHu/Boyckzi71!VLwAdAZC0ZP+DDXpXet4ofIwH5LiEntLucqvPdQRDjBNUE+OFD3bS7oxBLgn7So7vGg5bwdqFPiV!Jg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9276
X-Received-Bytes: 9488
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4093691166
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 1:27 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
      u32 P = ...;
      u32 I = ...;
      u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely
recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the
execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just
like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few
more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately
stops.

Perhaps


Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM

The terrible twos again. Can't control self, tantrum again. Recommend isolate in your room.

On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
 > halted is indeed a non-halting computation.

So far so good.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is indeed a halting computation.

Thus dividing inputs into not-halting and halting as the actual halting problem requires.

Of course there is way more to the problem:

No there is not.
The above conclusions logically follow from their premises.
It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat.

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.


1) Must show that stopping a computation only happens to non halting
    code.
2) Must show that any actual halting computation isn't stopped or is at
    least reported not to need stopping.
3) Must show that all non halting code is stopped (in finite time).

Now as everyone but you know, 1 has been partially justified and 2 and 3 have been completely and totally ignored. So you are not close to a proof. In fact you wouldn't know a proof if you saw it in six feet high letters.

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD
THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD
THIS PROOF IS DEFINITELY OVER YOUR HEAD

Since you have no proof in sight, you owe Richard an apology. The other point is that any proof of anything is certainly over your head.

And, by the way, this is your second lexically tantrum in one message. Give your self a time out, go to your room and chill, contemplate on the fact that every time you engage in such infantile behavior, you have been wrong: you are batting zero for over a thousand. By now you should realize that when you hit that repeat paste thing, you are trying to cover your ignorance and lack of clear thinking. So once again I suggest that you apologize to Richard for not wearing your big boy pants.


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:00 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 16:00:21 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad>
<X5SdnfRBY9oROV_CnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>
<qmzwH.15998$Wi7.15651@fx29.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 16:00:29 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <qmzwH.15998$Wi7.15651@fx29.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <OuCdnWKa5NfoVV_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 55
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ewf61Rxi+NFMA8WWsjekchtYrtR/zgDZEfCbXF3x94yKBhXWhnuRFNGNMN/wkjSI4qK+Y+aQ8VmJpks!htSbh5vpy47PXpK8D/0tEKTSR60glQ64hi8r8HMoUOTohTDc5UHV922HnnWmBeIJzOk6iMuda+5J!BQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4200
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM


DO YOU ACCEPT THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM?

I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID


Since just saying PROOF is no proof, and you deny the basic tenets of
the problem, I guess you are admitting that you aren't, but are just
pretendin you are, and thus showing yourself to be a liar.


I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD

It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat:

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: Mr Flibble
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:11 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad>
<X5SdnfRBY9oROV_CnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>
<qmzwH.15998$Wi7.15651@fx29.iad>
<OuCdnWKa5NfoVV_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: flibbleR...@i42.co.uk (Mr Flibble)
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OuCdnWKa5NfoVV_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <ZVzwH.49672$NJG7.39191@fx33.ams4>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:11:05 UTC
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:11:05 +0000
X-Received-Bytes: 3964
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4092738774
View all headers
On 28/11/2020 22:00, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM


DO YOU ACCEPT THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM?

I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID


Since just saying PROOF is no proof, and you deny the basic tenets of
the problem, I guess you are admitting that you aren't, but are just
pretendin you are, and thus showing yourself to be a liar.


I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD

It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat:

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

There are two options as far as I can see it:

1) Stop trolling.
2) Take your meds.

Please choose whichever operation is more appropriate.

/Flibble

--
¬


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:16 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 16:16:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad>
<X5SdnfRBY9oROV_CnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>
<qmzwH.15998$Wi7.15651@fx29.iad>
<OuCdnWKa5NfoVV_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZVzwH.49672$NJG7.39191@fx33.ams4>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 16:16:59 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ZVzwH.49672$NJG7.39191@fx33.ams4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <B-GdnWDCVeTPUV_CnZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 72
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Uk0NdJiwPnXh8/Uu+K9T12yVKWp3TGqsgb80C+GnQHuCyQtlvSV4MONUrLR1L4qmy86TW4gMsX0/Mms!iN1upuKfSdMO7UbF40LZSBB/vn/BoJdHxCkacyP7qPzrbFNaqzlnHV0KToZrOlkzGZkCLb00Z9Vd!GQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4794
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 4:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On 28/11/2020 22:00, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM


DO YOU ACCEPT THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM?

I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID


Since just saying PROOF is no proof, and you deny the basic tenets of
the problem, I guess you are admitting that you aren't, but are just
pretendin you are, and thus showing yourself to be a liar.


I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD

It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat:

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

There are two options as far as I can see it:

1) Stop trolling.
2) Take your meds.

Please choose whichever operation is more appropriate.

/Flibble


Which is another way of saying that you are not bright enough to comprehend how logical necessity works.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 23:06 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:06:28 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
<X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:06:36 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 198
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8nd6VD4fhNcx4HgtqBV0cL3NfSO0w2dG/q12X6KbeGXO2VfsCFI5uxP+5iS3w6A2mz2xj6lcYCg1YOF!rjz1QpYuC4Fe0kQkXh6KEI2MtlytogKnFODmP+bsPr8t23XhibLnKyYQH6A9DFyVERUYixw7rAc0!Wg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 10073
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 1:27 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
      u32 P = ...;
      u32 I = ...;
      u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely
recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the
execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just
like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few
more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately
stops.

Perhaps


Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM

The terrible twos again. Can't control self, tantrum again. Recommend isolate in your room.

On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
 > halted is indeed a non-halting computation.

So far so good.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is indeed a halting computation.

Thus dividing inputs into not-halting and halting as the actual halting problem requires.

Of course there is way more to the problem:

No there is not.
The above conclusions logically follow from their premises.
It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat.

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.


1) Must show that stopping a computation only happens to non halting
    code.
2) Must show that any actual halting computation isn't stopped or is at
    least reported not to need stopping.
3) Must show that all non halting code is stopped (in finite time).

Now as everyone but you know, 1 has been partially justified and 2 and 3 have been completely and totally ignored. So you are not close to a proof. In fact you wouldn't know a proof if you saw it in six feet high letters.

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,

So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS  is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

what seems like a completely logical inference to you isn't. Given all the crap you keep dishing, it's about time you chill and learn something about basics. Leave the rest to others who are better prepared for it. We will sometimes make mistakes too but one hell of of a lot less often then a boob like you. Your mistake rate is about once per line!


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 23:39 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:39:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
<X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me>
<xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<db61e720-f334-4d6d-8a73-ff439e64bf49n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:39:20 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <db61e720-f334-4d6d-8a73-ff439e64bf49n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XqKdnXOShMECQl_CnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 58
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1zWQba2XXC3XbVE2BELL1g5l4NR/k0pRjNpCVTqd92/cfofDauTv4BJ5dIY/NgVV1KOWhuya2VXC2ht!iOKyNdkg59xXTTg48CtBJT5ZZywYxK+Pwe09zHou9Oo4zgmkPx82ZJf3m/kqg96lwTW4cMRuNscU!5w==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4692
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 5:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2020 at 23:06:36 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a
subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this
seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not
imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no
inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,
So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of
things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

You said, "If a cat is black we know for sure it's a black cat". But my
sister has two cats. One is black. Do you know for sure that it's a
black cat? No, because you've only my word for it. It's not inherently

You know that is not any sort of rebuttal don't you?
The basic subject is logical necessity.

∀n ∈ ℕ (N > 5) precisely defines a set which is a mathematical object.
The set of black cats is also a mathematical object.

improbable that my sister has a black cat, and I've no obvious motive
for lying, but maybe it's in fact a tabby. You've no way of verifying what
I say.

As for the halt decider, it does seem at first sight that it's possible to
solve the problem through brute force. Every program must either
terminate or not terminate, but the "paradox proofs" don't consider
programs which expand state (like the busy beaver), so we can say
the programs will either terminate or get trapped in a tight loop which
ought to be easy enought to detect in an emulator with some
logic attached.

But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.


Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 23:49 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:49:07 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad>
<X5SdnfRBY9oROV_CnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>
<qmzwH.15998$Wi7.15651@fx29.iad>
<OuCdnWKa5NfoVV_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<28dd2cd6-4f23-4d9f-8876-7ce366d06140n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:49:15 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <28dd2cd6-4f23-4d9f-8876-7ce366d06140n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Fa2dnT0YUJ1ufF_CnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IYc+FzAl9yS4/9i8QCOZMLOjAHJmiInH4B1z8M10lrT0LweVOCXnnU5k1MMQOIxYWPnEXL2TuuHm5nn!PsmZ2yB4eXdIkCccz1/oo6Nr4sZI48HdFhYrb1XziRdS6dOflMPxj3o4f0Tjo4Ch4p901cyBJMiv!2Q==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3793
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 5:25 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 2:00:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Let me rephrase this and make it clearer:

Every pair of a Turing Machine and a tape that would  never halt
when simulated and can only be stopped by being aborted by the
simulator is a non-halting pair. All other pairs are halting pairs.

The difficulty here is that the simulator cannot know that the pair
will not halt eventually and hence will abort some halting pairs. QED


It may or may not know that a pair will not halt eventually in some cases. The important thing to note is that the conventional "trick" to define an input that does the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides no longer makes halting undecidable:

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = H(P, P);
   if (!Input_Halts)
     HALT
   else
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

The simulator stops simulating the above code before Halts() ever returns any value to H_Hat because this line of H_Hat is infinitely recursive, thus aborted.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 00:07 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:07:44 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad>
<X5SdnfRBY9oROV_CnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com>
<qmzwH.15998$Wi7.15651@fx29.iad>
<OuCdnWKa5NfoVV_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<X5BwH.12967$QL5.5412@fx22.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:07:52 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <X5BwH.12967$QL5.5412@fx22.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <yNSdnZrNMt3Ne1_CnZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 75
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-yYk8j/Q/7JBSCo3Sh1Onbxc87l4AtqFGYFVWdXdj6fW5bWV2nq6iERGKBXfNih4Sqc/Af7YFHuxe7wn!1CELQlwtr8T3JYAjiSNs+2HoSM97/e9OTYvmH75KQ4Xv4NJHUofwv/4q4nd6QerP4Ke3JvzKLy8g!cw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5204
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 5:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 1:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states,
which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT
problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM


DO YOU ACCEPT THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM?

I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID
I ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION READ WHAT I SAID


Since just saying PROOF is no proof, and you deny the basic tenets of
the problem, I guess you are admitting that you aren't, but are just
pretendin you are, and thus showing yourself to be a liar.


I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD
I KNOW THIS IS OVER YOUR HEAD

It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat:

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.


Yes, Every computation that would not halt if its simulatiopn were not
halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

But in the computation of H_Hat, the 'recursive' simulation is NOT just
a simulation but a halt detection, which has as part of its definition
being a finite computation,

Halts <is> the simulator of H_Hat (Whether you believe it or not its true either way). As soon as Halts determines that H_Hat would never halt unless it stopped simulating it Halts stops simulating H_Hat and correctly decides not halting.

That an increasing number of people simply don't "believe in" verifiable facts is a great risk of causing the extinction of humanity.


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: Jeff Barnett
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 00:34 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:34:58 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 232
Message-ID: <rpuqbl$sk0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
<X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me>
<xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 00:35:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a31d1576cea4f7dd763b3b75e7c1c340";
logging-data="29312"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uV9xB0Yxa0ClNNxA16cxvsArBYiO0sTU="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ok+x3nB5WdYWWReFx6IBFUCx0iA=
In-Reply-To: <xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 1:27 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
      u32 P = ...;
      u32 I = ...;
      u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely
recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the
execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just
like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few
more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately
stops.

Perhaps


Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM

The terrible twos again. Can't control self, tantrum again. Recommend isolate in your room.

On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
 > halted is indeed a non-halting computation.

So far so good.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is indeed a halting computation.

Thus dividing inputs into not-halting and halting as the actual halting problem requires.

Of course there is way more to the problem:

No there is not.
The above conclusions logically follow from their premises.
It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat.

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.


1) Must show that stopping a computation only happens to non halting
    code.
2) Must show that any actual halting computation isn't stopped or is at
    least reported not to need stopping.
3) Must show that all non halting code is stopped (in finite time).

Now as everyone but you know, 1 has been partially justified and 2 and 3 have been completely and totally ignored. So you are not close to a proof. In fact you wouldn't know a proof if you saw it in six feet high letters.

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,

So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS  is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

I deny at least two things: 1) that you take the time to read what others write and 2) that you comprehend what you read.

What I said, well that's above. Try reading for comprehension this time. No. No. No. No typing. Reading, comprehending, then put those typing fingers back in your pants where they will do some good. Did you it this time? I thought not. The next paragraph still applies. Loser.


what seems like a completely logical inference to you isn't. Given all the crap you keep dishing, it's about time you chill and learn something about basics. Leave the rest to others who are better prepared for it. We will sometimes make mistakes too but one hell of of a lot less often then a boob like you. Your mistake rate is about once per line!
--
Jeff Barnett



Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: Jeff Barnett
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 00:45 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:45:17 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <rpuquv$vdp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20201127104500.114@kylheku.com>
<Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
<X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me>
<xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<db61e720-f334-4d6d-8a73-ff439e64bf49n@googlegroups.com>
<XqKdnXOShMECQl_CnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 00:45:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a31d1576cea4f7dd763b3b75e7c1c340";
logging-data="32185"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1821CbUntnfBp5/EuT/udxhG9QSgd1yeMw="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:12BpBuF1cRt3iq6Znleh/N41wkI=
In-Reply-To: <XqKdnXOShMECQl_CnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 5:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2020 at 23:06:36 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a
subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this
seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not
imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no
inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,
So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of
things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

You said, "If a cat is black we know for sure it's a black cat". But my
sister has two cats. One is black. Do you know for sure that it's a
black cat? No, because you've only my word for it. It's not inherently

You know that is not any sort of rebuttal don't you?
The basic subject is logical necessity.

∀n ∈ ℕ (N > 5) precisely defines a set which is a mathematical object.
The set of black cats is also a mathematical object.

improbable that my sister has a black cat, and I've no obvious motive
for lying, but maybe it's in fact a tabby. You've no way of verifying what
I say.

As for the halt decider, it does seem at first sight that it's possible to
solve the problem through brute force. Every program must either
terminate or not terminate, but the "paradox proofs" don't consider
programs which expand state (like the busy beaver), so we can say
the programs will either terminate or get trapped in a tight loop which
ought to be easy enought to detect in an emulator with some
logic attached.

But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.


Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Now you owe Malcolm an apology. You are answering before reading. You go from seeing a word in middle of a paragraph; you get out the old copy and paste gun; if you are in tantrum, you fire it a half dozen times, else only once. The context surrounding the word is of no interest to you. Out pops non sequitur garbage, and off you go again. I'm beginning to think your mind is like a sewer in a drought. It lets garbage pile up and pile up till it's chockingly full. It seems what you need to do to get back on track is ask a friend to piss in your ear.
--
Jeff Barnett



Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 01:03 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:03:04 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpqtfq$d86$1@dont-email.me> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20201127104500.114@kylheku.com> <Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com> <Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad> <Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad> <Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad> <iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad> <Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad> <4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me> <X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me> <xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpuqbl$sk0$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:03:12 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rpuqbl$sk0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <S7-dneoyONrVbl_CnZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 231
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-7CS5P+OY87vybWisfuQTdWyWH7CS0vFSyelRqCBwN6v+P27oIvLXD9q9rfNjmjS2ODu74R3VCbWZFwm!RjTP/wTpNuJMlAOGISkeh2GrddwriPe9/ePfixITZ3cKjERc8M+gbGhy7CDQKlQ2kuLY4kKjMx2A!8Q==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 11739
X-Received-Bytes: 11905
X-Received-Body-CRC: 157650512
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 6:34 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 1:27 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 8:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 7:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/27/20 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/27/2020 4:39 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 11:20:34 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
There are no actual material errors in any of my halting problem
refutation work in the last 39 days of continuous review.

Assuming what your "work" refers to is a claim that there are
Turing Machines that can take any Turing Machine Description
and tell us whether that description describes a machine that
halts after a finite number of steps:

I have seen dozens of claims that there are errors and pointing
out where and how such errors erred.

In none of these cases was the rebuttal correct.

I would say that you have yet to actually try to rebut many of the
errors pointed out to you.
When I showed you that twenty-five steps is not an infinite
computation
did you get this? (I think not)

I said that the decider had not returned the answer to its caller in
finite time, because that is what YOU had said.


When I showed you that an infinitely recursive invocation does not
ever
return any value to its caller do you get this? (I think not, you
thought that there were some cases where it did).



As I said above, based on what YOU had said, you said that the Halts
call had never returned its answer to its caller.
You still don't get it do you?
Infinitely recursive <MEANS> NEVER RETURNS TO CALLER.


Ok Peter. Given:

main()
{
      u32 P = ...;
      u32 I = ...;
      u32 haltd = Halts(P, I) // for some P, I that is infinitely
recursive
}

If you are saying the above Halts call does NOT return to its caller,
than Halts is BROKEN and is not a valid Decider.

Is THIS what you are claiming?


No infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
No simulated infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat) H_Hat never returns any value H_Hat.

H_Hat never actually returns to Halts, Halts simply decides to stop
simulating it.

If you understood the x86 language you will see that I already totally
proved this.



Ok, so your Halt detector doesn't know enough to stop the infinite
recursion and return to its caller.

Infinite recursion <MEANS> DOES NOT RETURN TO CALLER.
(Get other people here to explain this to you).

When a halt decider detects infinite recursion it immediately aborts the
execution. This aborted program immediately ceases running. It is just
like pulling out the plug from the wall. The program does not do a few
more steps after it has its electricity shut off, it simply immediately
stops.

Perhaps


Isn't it the job of the Halting Decider to TELL the program asking it
about the halting/non-halting behavior of the provided input.

For a Turing Machine, it does this by going to one of two states, which
will halt, but can be modified by the enclosing machine.

Of course, if you are defining your self to answer a DIFFERENT problem,
just say so and admit your answer isn't applicable to the classical
halting problem or anything based on it.

PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM
PROOF THAT MY SOLUTION APPLIES TO THE CLASSICAL HALTING PROBLEM

The terrible twos again. Can't control self, tantrum again. Recommend isolate in your room.

On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
 > halted is indeed a non-halting computation.

So far so good.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is indeed a halting computation.

Thus dividing inputs into not-halting and halting as the actual halting problem requires.

Of course there is way more to the problem:

No there is not.
The above conclusions logically follow from their premises.
It is like I am saying if a cat is black then we know its a black cat.

Every computation that would not halt if its simulation were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even if its simulation were not
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.


1) Must show that stopping a computation only happens to non halting
    code.
2) Must show that any actual halting computation isn't stopped or is at
    least reported not to need stopping.
3) Must show that all non halting code is stopped (in finite time).

Now as everyone but you know, 1 has been partially justified and 2 and 3 have been completely and totally ignored. So you are not close to a proof. In fact you wouldn't know a proof if you saw it in six feet high letters.

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,

So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS  is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

I deny at least two things: 1) that you take the time to read what others write and 2) that you comprehend what you read.

I often stop reading what others write after their first fatal flaw so that we can focus on this key point without distraction until it is fully resolved to mutual understanding.

What I said, well that's above. Try reading for comprehension this time. No. No. No. No typing. Reading, comprehending, then put those typing fingers back in your pants where they will do some good. Did you it this time? I thought not. The next paragraph still applies. Loser.


I know exactly what you wrote and your specific error was from switching the context of analytical deductions to empirical observations.

I said that a member of the intersection of two sets is a member of both sets (A necessary truism)

and your rebuttal was how do you know it is a member of the first set?

I say something like this:
∀x ∈ ℕ (x > 5) → (X > 3)
and you rebuttal is: How do you know X > 5 ?

what seems like a completely logical inference to you isn't. Given all the crap you keep dishing, it's about time you chill and learn something about basics. Leave the rest to others who are better prepared for it. We will sometimes make mistakes too but one hell of of a lot less often then a boob like you. Your mistake rate is about once per line!


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 01:08 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:07:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20201127104500.114@kylheku.com> <Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com> <Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad> <Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad> <Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad> <iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad> <Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad> <4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me> <X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me> <xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <db61e720-f334-4d6d-8a73-ff439e64bf49n@googlegroups.com> <XqKdnXOShMECQl_CnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpuquv$vdp$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:08:05 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <rpuquv$vdp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <49KdnfoM8ujzaV_CnZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 74
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-gQBdn5zjOSBAwLImZmdaTOi53hR+CKz7/RDZWmIQfTVFT4BAF8Yly0c98KtlPC5RorLFaroZHyBkPaw!nHkV8sYZWomT+vmDWqDsjIHcs/u64ksi6tOYHDa2zTGUIQYmFUx4eiPoCrHa0kkohsvyzp+eqPcG!EA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5358
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 6:45 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 5:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2020 at 23:06:36 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a
subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this
seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not
imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no
inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,
So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of
things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

You said, "If a cat is black we know for sure it's a black cat". But my
sister has two cats. One is black. Do you know for sure that it's a
black cat? No, because you've only my word for it. It's not inherently

You know that is not any sort of rebuttal don't you?
The basic subject is logical necessity.

∀n ∈ ℕ (N > 5) precisely defines a set which is a mathematical object.
The set of black cats is also a mathematical object.

improbable that my sister has a black cat, and I've no obvious motive
for lying, but maybe it's in fact a tabby. You've no way of verifying what
I say.

As for the halt decider, it does seem at first sight that it's possible to
solve the problem through brute force. Every program must either
terminate or not terminate, but the "paradox proofs" don't consider
programs which expand state (like the busy beaver), so we can say
the programs will either terminate or get trapped in a tight loop which
ought to be easy enought to detect in an emulator with some
logic attached.

But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.


Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Now you owe Malcolm an apology. You are answering before reading. You go

Bullshit !!!

 >>> the programs will either terminate or get trapped in
 >>> a tight loop which ought to be easy enought to detect
 >>> in an emulator with some logic attached.
 >>>
 >>> But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.

Then I provide the way out of the paradox of the proofs proving that what he just said was incorrect.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 04:29 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:29:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ktadnV4CRaT7klzCnZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20201127104500.114@kylheku.com> <Bb2dnTa6DpznzFzCnZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com> <Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad> <Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad> <Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad> <iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad> <Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad> <4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <XnxwH.157513$093.85657@fx05.iad> <X5SdnfRBY9oROV_CnZ2dnUU7-SednZ2d@giganews.com> <qmzwH.15998$Wi7.15651@fx29.iad> <OuCdnWKa5NfoVV_CnZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <28dd2cd6-4f23-4d9f-8876-7ce366d06140n@googlegroups.com> <Fa2dnT0YUJ1ufF_CnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <3hDwH.15543$Cc5.5783@fx36.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:29:58 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3hDwH.15543$Cc5.5783@fx36.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Vt2dnX-VBIkjvl7CnZ2dnUU7-c_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 53
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-G8hHTqeJNd5okY7zEHdrg7/5kViYb/CYSVCMMarbWvawdY0zIDnowcvahFuLkuQa86dXRLuBr9K+jO6!Zp3PUZFsQCnqpccadbRCB4rifrTBcyqtCrXYMkaI5/ytJr8PEYRHv3ltV/RWO0+f5vWPyIVJFcM9!Zw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4273
View all headers
On 11/28/2020 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/28/20 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 5:25 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 2:00:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Let me rephrase this and make it clearer:

Every pair of a Turing Machine and a tape that would  never halt
when simulated and can only be stopped by being aborted by the
simulator is a non-halting pair. All other pairs are halting pairs.

The difficulty here is that the simulator cannot know that the pair
will not halt eventually and hence will abort some halting pairs. QED


It may or may not know that a pair will not halt eventually in some
cases. The important thing to note is that the conventional "trick" to
define an input that does the opposite of whatever the halt decider
decides no longer makes halting undecidable:

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = H(P, P);
   if (!Input_Halts)
     HALT
   else
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

The simulator stops simulating the above code before Halts() ever
returns any value to H_Hat because this line of H_Hat is infinitely
recursive, thus aborted.


And thus shows it to not meet the requirements of a Halt decider.

I am convinced that there is nothing left that even superficially appears to be a valid rebuttal. The time has come to formalize my presentation to be escalated to the next level of review.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 14:56 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 08:56:08 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6ec0ea9b-9637-4742-9498-badca28db530n@googlegroups.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
<X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me>
<xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<db61e720-f334-4d6d-8a73-ff439e64bf49n@googlegroups.com>
<XqKdnXOShMECQl_CnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpuquv$vdp$1@dont-email.me>
<49KdnfoM8ujzaV_CnZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<74a3b34c-fa3c-46de-8601-f8f167b9e15an@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 08:56:17 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <74a3b34c-fa3c-46de-8601-f8f167b9e15an@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xeudnZObyp4VK17CnZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 103
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-e7JCC1Me2hmOQKqB61tegpnVYGU3qSZ5gbpu5wdpEKCY/eq/dImVKToEMjbdPXiQX2z7aGY7EvLrskH!HukjRCIM27xZbbIeOXzlwtUQnivTKJSbztP6Hw/jUxj3adAtb1kn2ggc+0HHR95RVN2UV/qihZKv!Gg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6831
View all headers
On 11/29/2020 6:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 29 November 2020 at 01:08:05 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 6:45 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 5:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2020 at 23:06:36 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a
subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this
seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not
imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no
inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,
So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of
things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

You said, "If a cat is black we know for sure it's a black cat". But my
sister has two cats. One is black. Do you know for sure that it's a
black cat? No, because you've only my word for it. It's not inherently

You know that is not any sort of rebuttal don't you?
The basic subject is logical necessity.

∀n ∈ ℕ (N > 5) precisely defines a set which is a mathematical object.
The set of black cats is also a mathematical object.

improbable that my sister has a black cat, and I've no obvious motive
for lying, but maybe it's in fact a tabby. You've no way of verifying
what
I say.

As for the halt decider, it does seem at first sight that it's
possible to
solve the problem through brute force. Every program must either
terminate or not terminate, but the "paradox proofs" don't consider
programs which expand state (like the busy beaver), so we can say
the programs will either terminate or get trapped in a tight loop which
ought to be easy enought to detect in an emulator with some
logic attached.

But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.


Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Now you owe Malcolm an apology. You are answering before reading. You go
Bullshit !!!
the programs will either terminate or get trapped in
a tight loop which ought to be easy enought to detect
in an emulator with some logic attached.

But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.
Then I provide the way out of the paradox of the proofs proving that
what he just said was incorrect.

Unfortunately no.
Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

The snag is that the simulation itself is being fed to the simulation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

You can detect most halting calculations easily enough. That's true.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Yes, but you can't make the division. You can determine for any finite
set of inputs, assuming you write the detector after the set is defined,
but you can always create an input that a detector gets wrong.


I just tested this (my infinite recursion detector is complete)
Halts(Halts, Halts) returns false.

Since all of the Halt deciders decide not halting as soon as they have enough information to do this the outer Halts decides not halting on the inner Halts.

If the outer Halts simply waited for the inner Halts to halt on its own then every Halts would wait for its inner Halts to halt on its own and Halts would never halt.

--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 15:12 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 09:11:55 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all (logical necessity)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <3JSdnRrpiNHInV3CnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Zp-dnY_Z1sWVFFzCnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<N3jwH.147942$093.64818@fx05.iad>
<Hcmdndgmzq1YXFzCnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lrkwH.29565$ob5.6193@fx11.iad>
<Ouednbei66FTSFzCnZ2dnUU7-cWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<joswH.38044$Uz.8683@fx46.iad>
<iNCdncDhJpR8wV_CnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<r6twH.182673$2j.88246@fx38.iad>
<Q9idnVCg0YnQ_F_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XswwH.16164$sB6.1088@fx34.iad>
<4OidnftKT4N7B1_CnZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpu8bf$h76$1@dont-email.me>
<X6-dnQ10yr8IOl_CnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpujt8$mmh$1@dont-email.me>
<xrOdnaHC8ZlpSl_CnZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<db61e720-f334-4d6d-8a73-ff439e64bf49n@googlegroups.com>
<XqKdnXOShMECQl_CnZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <rpuquv$vdp$1@dont-email.me>
<49KdnfoM8ujzaV_CnZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<74a3b34c-fa3c-46de-8601-f8f167b9e15an@googlegroups.com>
<xeudnZObyp4VK17CnZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 09:12:05 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <xeudnZObyp4VK17CnZ2dnUU7-Y3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <AsidnUBR-YmmJ17CnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 121
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NSIODPTVo85Dxs59wmw7xOuaib71Y54R8wX2wE2/DMgyAVuFUgqPWS56+arXCQC3xJ2DgT4hp5RgmF2!7HENBa8ziQXoD9ChdjEqwbeqYn7pMy3guJxWkMjYksLlBDW9KWSxQzABvknpaig+lTmWcMnoHYcl!Xw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7374
View all headers
On 11/29/2020 8:56 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/29/2020 6:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 29 November 2020 at 01:08:05 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 6:45 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 5:25 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2020 at 23:06:36 UTC, olcott wrote:
On 11/28/2020 4:44 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

It a cat is black then we know for sure its a black cat.

How do you spell non sequitur again? Don't try logic at this point, a
subject that you have failed starting in week one's class. Even this
seemingly trivial statement you have wrong: A cat being black does not
imply you know that fact let alone know it for sure, so there is no
inference from the state of the world to what you know about it. See,
So then you deny that the intersection the set of cats with the set of
things that are black in color would derive the set of black cats?

(CATS ∩ BLACK_THINGS) ≡ BLACK_CATS is not true?

As always most every rebuttal is fundamentally ridiculous.

You said, "If a cat is black we know for sure it's a black cat". But my
sister has two cats. One is black. Do you know for sure that it's a
black cat? No, because you've only my word for it. It's not inherently

You know that is not any sort of rebuttal don't you?
The basic subject is logical necessity.

∀n ∈ ℕ (N > 5) precisely defines a set which is a mathematical object.
The set of black cats is also a mathematical object.

improbable that my sister has a black cat, and I've no obvious motive
for lying, but maybe it's in fact a tabby. You've no way of verifying
what
I say.

As for the halt decider, it does seem at first sight that it's
possible to
solve the problem through brute force. Every program must either
terminate or not terminate, but the "paradox proofs" don't consider
programs which expand state (like the busy beaver), so we can say
the programs will either terminate or get trapped in a tight loop which
ought to be easy enought to detect in an emulator with some
logic attached.

But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.


Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Now you owe Malcolm an apology. You are answering before reading. You go
Bullshit !!!
the programs will either terminate or get trapped in
a tight loop which ought to be easy enought to detect
in an emulator with some logic attached.

But in fact this isn't a way out of the paradox proofs.
Then I provide the way out of the paradox of the proofs proving that
what he just said was incorrect.

Unfortunately no.
Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.

The snag is that the simulation itself is being fed to the simulation.

Every computation that does halt even when its simulation is never
halted is by logical necessity a halting computation.

You can detect most halting calculations easily enough. That's true.

When we divide all inputs into not halting and halting then by
logical necessity we have solved the actual halting problem.

Yes, but you can't make the division. You can determine for any finite
set of inputs, assuming you write the detector after the set is defined,
but you can always create an input that a detector gets wrong.


I just tested this (my infinite recursion detector is complete)
Halts(Halts, Halts) returns false.

Since all of the Halt deciders decide not halting as soon as they have enough information to do this the outer Halts decides not halting on the inner Halts.

If the outer Halts simply waited for the inner Halts to halt on its own then every Halts would wait for its inner Halts to halt on its own and Halts would never halt.


So far the only input that anyone says that the decider ever gets wrong is actually input that the decider gets right and they dismiss this entirely on the basis that they really really believe that the decider cannot get this input right no matter what the verifiable facts themselves say to contradict them.


--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott

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


Pages:123456789101112131415161718
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor