Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

SubjectAuthor
* What if a cat barks?olcott
+* Re: What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|+* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||+- Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||`* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
|| `* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||  `* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||   `* Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
||    `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||     `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||      +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||      |`- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
||      `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
||       `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
||        `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
||         `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||          `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||           `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteChris M. Thomasson
||            |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteJeff Barnett
||            | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | | |+- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | | |`- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteChris M. Thomasson
||            | | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | | | `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | |  `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | | |   `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | | |    `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | |     `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | |`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocatioolcott
||            | | +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | | `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            | `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||            `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
||             `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|`* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
| `* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  +- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  +* Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  |`- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|  `- Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
+- Re: What if a cat barks? [ How can a cat bark? ]olcott
+- Re: What if a cat barks?olcott
`* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
 `* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
  `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
   `* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
    `* Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
     `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
      +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
      `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
       `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
        `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
         `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
          `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
           `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
            `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
             `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
              `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
               `* Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                `* Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?assumed. identiy.3396
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?esa 4me
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 +- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer
                 `- Re: What if a cat barks?Don Stockbauer

Pages:123456
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 03:07 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 22:07:02 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <satao3$gjk$1@dont-email.me> <YuOdnXMSQcOgqk_9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <savr2l$b1i$1@dont-email.me> <48GdnbWRNeocCU79nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me> <6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 22:07:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 166
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NVW8ZUJW/umaTqkW3OWEIiEP5/bwShBrsMhGlIv0U2y4b6WGXcDZCGcCRtIe5pUApHOfjxZlHUj146T!zuyzak9Xy2lse6etZrTkaST5+LvvJYTZ0Ggj/M5kKVcYsZkz49jBwTLUG95adDc0qO4WpnuerOM=
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: 8577
View all headers
On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create a P
that
doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically creating
nonsense
and can't use it to for anything logical.


Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt decider H
that can
possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its input
results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
then a
simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of this
input
does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
halting
behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.

Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
(Hn), P
will result in infinite recursion,

Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the set of
encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort the
simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this input
never halts.

WHY?


Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on
the
basis of the meaning of its words.

WRONG.

Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has been
explained many times.


Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand that
they are necessarily correct.

I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain meaning
is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the simulator
simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated can
be corrected decided as non-Halting.

An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then it is
correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.

This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and only if
P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
trivially proven.

Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as even
you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.

Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be correct,
but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.


Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since even
you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end and
halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't need to
abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.


Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite execution
of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all possible
doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.

WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it knows
at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when we run
P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
(since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
answer to it and that P can then Halt.

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

Now I have told this this several hundred times.



WRONG.

P(P) starts.

Calls H(P,P)

H starts the simulation.

H simulates P starting

H simulates P calling H

H simulates H starting its simulation

H simulates H simulating P starting

H simulates H simulating P calling H

The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution

THe first H aborts its simulation

The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller

P then Halts

Showing P is a Halting Computation.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: Chris M. Thomasson
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 08:11 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 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: chris.m....@gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 01:11:32 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YuOdnXMSQcOgqk_9nZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <savr2l$b1i$1@dont-email.me>
<48GdnbWRNeocCU79nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me>
<6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me>
<kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
View all headers
On 6/25/2021 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create a P
that
doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically creating
nonsense
and can't use it to for anything logical.


Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt decider H
that can
possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its input
results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
then a
simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of this
input
does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
halting
behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.

Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
(Hn), P
will result in infinite recursion,

Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the set of
encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort the
simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this input
never halts.

WHY?


Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on
the
basis of the meaning of its words.

WRONG.

Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has been
explained many times.


Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand that
they are necessarily correct.

I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain meaning
is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the simulator
simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated can
be corrected decided as non-Halting.

An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then it is
correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.

This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and only if
P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
trivially proven.

Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as even
you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.

Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be correct,
but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.


Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since even
you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end and
halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't need to
abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.


Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite execution
of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all possible
doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.

WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it knows
at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when we run
P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
(since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
answer to it and that P can then Halt.

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

Now I have told this this several hundred times.



WRONG.

P(P) starts.

Calls H(P,P)

H starts the simulation.

H simulates P starting

H simulates P calling H

H simulates H starting its simulation

H simulates H simulating P starting

H simulates H simulating P calling H

The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution

THe first H aborts its simulation

The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller

P then Halts

Showing P is a Halting Computation.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.


Are you nuts, or are recovering from a recent head injury?


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: Jeff Barnett
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:27 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 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!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: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 04:27:46 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<savr2l$b1i$1@dont-email.me> <48GdnbWRNeocCU79nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me> <6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e9c7321294248fa202b95a5291ecd3fd";
logging-data="1597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196Ey9KsmFxJlziSXTXVFnqwmtxvh2U8sE="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C40TnPGThAD0WGnqCxp9kepsDD0=
In-Reply-To: <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Language: en-US
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 2:11 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 6/25/2021 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create a P
that
doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically creating
nonsense
and can't use it to for anything logical.


Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt decider H
that can
possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its input
results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
then a
simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of this
input
does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
halting
behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.

Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
(Hn), P
will result in infinite recursion,

Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the set of
encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort the
simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this input
never halts.

WHY?


Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is
aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as true on
the
basis of the meaning of its words.

WRONG.

Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has been
explained many times.


Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand that
they are necessarily correct.

I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain meaning
is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the simulator
simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated can
be corrected decided as non-Halting.

An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then it is
correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.

This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and only if
P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
trivially proven.

Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as even
you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.

Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be correct,
but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.


Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since even
you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end and
halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't need to
abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.


Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite execution
of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all possible
doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.

WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it knows
at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when we run
P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
(since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
answer to it and that P can then Halt.

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

Now I have told this this several hundred times.



WRONG.

P(P) starts.

Calls H(P,P)

H starts the simulation.

H simulates P starting

H simulates P calling H

H simulates H starting its simulation

H simulates H simulating P starting

H simulates H simulating P calling H

The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution

THe first H aborts its simulation

The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller

P then Halts

Showing P is a Halting Computation.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P otherwise P never ever halts.


Are you nuts, or are recovering from a recent head injury?

It's not recent. It seems he's been at it for a few decades.
--
Jeff Barnett



Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(Ben lies)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 15:52 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!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.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, 26 Jun 2021 10:52:23 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(Ben lies)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:52:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 52
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dYjzR/RG364koZMWCNXOEj98MVjjbD5GQgn6wpO2Mc4hdenqqIhPJTyUwmOvyX+5qCW9LJCIQi1JgOR!7MrNDVqMb/zp1KYZewavDhQMz6y+fh0eGnvFqVKi13v4m8nlcgGsPIyHKiI1DC4emCC3BeIAstM=
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: 4042
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 9:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I've trimmed the newsgroups.  I suggest everyone else does so as well.
There is no need to damage more than one group with this junk.

Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:

On 6/26/2021 2:11 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Are you nuts, or are recovering from a recent head injury?

It's not recent. It seems he's been at it for a few decades.

I first cam across PO when he was about to get rich selling some
software based on two junk patents he'd filed.  The software was vapour
ware (at the time) but the expectation of riches was real enough.  The
situation may be reversed now.

I appear to have first talked about halting with PO in 2012.  I had a
look at one of the replies I made back then.  See how predictable it all
is:

   "You see?  No connection to what I said.  No discussion.  Just a
   re-statement of the same false claim.  Should I state, yet again, why
   it's false?  Is there any reason to think you'd address the argument
   if I did so?"

That's a shade off 20 years ago.  It really is futile.


On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one its infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts

On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >
 > Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
 > will result in infinite recursion,

So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.



--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:00 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 24
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6b82:: with SMTP id n2mr17476314wrx.206.1624723205298;
Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweak.nl!209.85.128.87.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.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, 26 Jun 2021 10:59:59 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0f72$hf4$1@dont-email.me> <6POdnUnCSvCzVk79nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZmDBI.855721$nn2.135856@fx48.iad>
<e4qdnS-e7YZgokr9nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UnHBI.259012$Ms7.25415@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 11:00:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <UnHBI.259012$Ms7.25415@fx34.iad>
Message-ID: <gdednWgWttxi00r9nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 223
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3eyzG1vlgCyVvFoNrlawOaIxNqKm08VaDVGPiTmXORy/m/E4b03vOLPgXnQ8tC5WKAvvpq9UKxLxEaE!hqYMvKUVG8uNvRzTs1nNmZHlIrSP8n/tE5xTmKkpRexaGRCdUX8CrfSyJ9ejfD94a5x6T+oMDwM=
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: 10568
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically create
a P
that
doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically
creating
nonsense
and can't use it to for anything logical.


Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt
decider H
that can
possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its
input
results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of P(P)
then a
simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of
this
input
does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
halting
behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.

Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
(Hn), P
will result in infinite recursion,

Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the
set of
encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do abort
the
simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this
input
never halts.

WHY?


Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its
simulation is
aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as
true on
the
basis of the meaning of its words.

WRONG.

Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has
been
explained many times.


Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand
that
they are necessarily correct.

I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain
meaning
is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the
simulator
simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being simulated
can
be corrected decided as non-Halting.

An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then
it is
correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.

This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and
only if
P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that statement is
trivially proven.

Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
included in P and that included copy needs to abort the simulation of
the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as
even
you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.

Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to be the
answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be
correct,
but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.


Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since
even
you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end
and
halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus is BY
DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't
need to
abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.


Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite
execution
of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all
possible
doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.

WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it
knows
at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when
we run
P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
(since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
answer to it and that P can then Halt.

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

Now I have told this this several hundred times.



WRONG.

P(P) starts.

Calls H(P,P)

H starts the simulation.

H simulates P starting

H simulates P calling H

H simulates H starting its simulation

H simulates H simulating P starting

H simulates H simulating P calling H

The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite execution

THe first H aborts its simulation

The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller

P then Halts

Showing P is a Halting Computation.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.


Yes, P halts because the H it contains terminated the simulation of
another copy of its description.

YOUR problem is that you think that actually means something, it doesn't


Whenever one invocation of the infinite invocation chain of infinite
recursion is aborted the whole chain terminates.

WRONG, if the aborting is occurring inside the chain, which it is in
this case.


In the computation int main() { P(P); } If no P ever halts unless some H aborts some P this proves beyond all possible doubt that P(P) specifies an infinitely recursive chain of invocations.

That it took me so long to find these words proves that I am a relatively terrible communicator. On the other hand these words do unequivocally validate that my logic was correct all along.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 16:29 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 24
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, 26 Jun 2021 11:29:26 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb0kra$ert$1@dont-email.me> <kaudnZS1vPJiaE79nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZmDBI.855721$nn2.135856@fx48.iad>
<e4qdnS-e7YZgokr9nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<UnHBI.259012$Ms7.25415@fx34.iad>
<gdednWgWttxi00r9nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<boIBI.69083$8O4.49240@fx16.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 11:29:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <boIBI.69083$8O4.49240@fx16.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xsGdncLAk9R6yEr9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 249
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ZD2rGA5QAglo8OFn0ad5mLRknQTKuxVrOwXngqN7ZjTJ4dSs0DBgYqb7OSaN2WHyrVTc+uJQK/3V4Ai!cg6Gc82/hd5eyJ6H1i0XilNOd/XC/8JUQgWHO9YSGdDc09+gr8p5HKxJbpi7Jnl41kG25BRLICA=
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: 11746
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 11:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 12:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 10:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 4:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/25/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/25/2021 12:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

WRONG. P is DEFINED based on H. If you Hypothetically
create
a P
that
doesn't follow that form, then you are hypothetically
creating
nonsense
and can't use it to for anything logical.


Of every possible encoding of simulating partial halt
decider H
that can
possibly exist  H*, if H* never aborts the simulation of its
input
results in the infinite execution of the invocation of of
P(P)
then a
simulating halt decider H that does abort its simulation of
this
input
does correctly decide that this input does specify the never
halting
behavior of an infinite chain of invocations.

Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders
(Hn), P
will result in infinite recursion,

Which logically entails beyond all possible doubt that the
set of
encodings of simulating partial halt deciders H2* that do
abort
the
simulation of the (P,P) input would correctly report that this
input
never halts.

WHY?


Axiom(1) Every computation that never halts unless its
simulation is
aborted is a computation that never halts. This verified as
true on
the
basis of the meaning of its words.

WRONG.

Your test does not match the plain meaning of the words, as has
been
explained many times.


Those words may be over your head, yet several others understand
that
they are necessarily correct.

I have seen NO ONE agree to your interpretation of it. The plain
meaning
is that if it can be shown that if the given instance of the
simulator
simulating a given input doesn't stop its simulation that this
simulation will run forevr, then the machine that is being
simulated
can
be corrected decided as non-Halting.

An more formal way to say that is if UTM(P,I) is non-halting then
it is
correct for H(P,I) to return the non-halting result.

This actually follows since UTM(P,I) will be non-halting if and
only if
P(I) is non-halting by the definition of a UTM, so that
statement is
trivially proven.

Your interpretation, where even if a copy of the algorithm of H is
included in P and that included copy needs to abort the
simulation of
the copy of the machine that it was given, can be PROVEN wrong, as
even
you have shown that P(P) in this case does Halt, thus your claimed
correct answer is wrong by the definition of the problem.

Only if you define that your answer isn't actually supposed to
be the
answer to the halting problem can you justify your answer to be
correct,
but then you proof doesn't achieve the goal you claim.


Note, it is easy to show that your interpretation is wrong since
even
you admit that Linz H^, now called P by you will come to its end
and
halt when given it own representation as its input, and thus
is BY
DEFINITION a Halting Computation, Thus the H deciding it didn't
need to
abort its execution to get the wrong answer of Non-Halting.


Because at least one invocation of the infinite invocation chain
specified by P(P) had to be terminated to prevent the infinite
execution
of this infinite invocation chain it is confirmed beyond all
possible
doubt that P(P) specifies an invocation chain.

WRONG. Given that we have an H that can answer H(P,P) because it
knows
at least enough to terminate the pattern you describe, then when
we run
P(P) then because the H within it also knows to abort this sequence
(since it is built on the same algorithm) this P is NOT part of an
infinite chain of execution, and thus its H can return its (wrong)
answer to it and that P can then Halt.

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

P(P) specifies in infinite invocation sequence that is terminated
on its
third invocation of H(P,P).

Now I have told this this several hundred times.



WRONG.

P(P) starts.

Calls H(P,P)

H starts the simulation.

H simulates P starting

H simulates P calling H

H simulates H starting its simulation

H simulates H simulating P starting

H simulates H simulating P calling H

The first H about here detects what it THINKS is an infinite
execution

THe first H aborts its simulation

The first H returns its answer (Non-Halting) to its caller

P then Halts

Showing P is a Halting Computation.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.

As you already admitted P ONLY halts because some H aborts some P
otherwise P never ever halts.


Yes, P halts because the H it contains terminated the simulation of
another copy of its description.

YOUR problem is that you think that actually means something, it
doesn't


Whenever one invocation of the infinite invocation chain of infinite
recursion is aborted the whole chain terminates.

WRONG, if the aborting is occurring inside the chain, which it is in
this case.


In the computation int main() { P(P); } If no P ever halts unless some H
aborts some P this proves beyond all possible doubt that P(P) specifies
an infinitely recursive chain of invocations.

That it took me so long to find these words proves that I am a
relatively terrible communicator. On the other hand these words do
unequivocally validate that my logic was correct all along.


But if your H does answer the question H(P,P) then the P DOES Halt,

Every competent software engineer knows that an infinitely recursive chain of invocations stops as soon as one link in this chain is broken.

Every competent software engineer knows that when the whole chains stops because one link is broken that this provides no evidence that it was not an infinitely recursive chain of invocations.

When people that are not competent software engineers argue against this they look very foolish.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 00:01 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!feeder8.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.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, 26 Jun 2021 19:01:40 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:01:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 36
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-qJaKrVzbdRt3GEuT7JmrzGaDgNXtMwDeIDd7sc0Lp7RYuXc2Ib0Nv/tqeUEKZYT4SvGYbNGqhMZLl7W!6/xTPa6mXPYw1Zi/5ppcZHINRoPGKFwSBdKRIR7lkizniUHjgoKjrdr2j53nixHaaZWTkT4yLgU=
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: 3322
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:


On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...

I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.


I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable reasoning that proves that I am correct.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts:

On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >
 > Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
 > will result in infinite recursion,

So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 00:49 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!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.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, 26 Jun 2021 19:49:21 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:49:21 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <be-dndHQ27uMVkr9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DWAAWoySrs5rxdsMitK+FbmsXNovjoNMo0bcCjKYJm2VqtqtygOPotO4N4Mt7mHy1k5uPJSTnUCnhEa!Rby48kXAJA6Q+2ilb0tr0GUk97bgggRZSKUyqJp2FDAH96f9xQ+pWpEH84v0+4zWztv/YxPDWls=
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: 3856
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.


I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
knucklehead. It was not 2012.

I know.  I was point out that your attribution line was a lie.  You
probably have no idea what that means having only used Usenet for a few
decades.


Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.

I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts:

On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >
 > Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
 > will result in infinite recursion,

So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 00:54 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 24
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, 26 Jun 2021 19:54:37 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(knucklehead)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 19:54:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hgOp87OnkSYzTPPphUrLSGcA8R7NmtPe+KFWlA4OPUTrgk44dl785vlwhI7UD/BWoJpLVWaMvGK42mQ!NStMJ3PfHmitcDuWc03b0Q6nygz7f+1nKxjB6vUS1NTLkbHEA32srPBb45dmk2F4qkjzNXcBbQE=
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: 3587
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:


On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...

I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.


I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable
reasoning that proves that I am correct.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

Yes, If H will never abort its P, then THAT P will be non-halting.

Problem is
That you do not understand that when one invocation of the connected chain of invocations of infinite recursion int main(){ P(P); }

is aborted thus forcing the whole chain to halt, this does not mean that int main(){ P(P); } does not specify a chain of infinite invocations.

Everyone here that is proficient at software engineering knows that I am correct about this.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:05 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!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.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, 26 Jun 2021 20:05:49 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(knucklehead)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <60ca2e77-1c6b-4415-9c74-5a6e73e8d391n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:05:49 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <60ca2e77-1c6b-4415-9c74-5a6e73e8d391n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <EOOdnZSMpbpwU0r9nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-don7VO4vjYcuUXwT/C4I3HX3ErkkTWxvzcDXRGsgEIJ6Myv0Wj2+TnOR3ZRW3Wa/8Kx+nTigfqrzr0Q!6T0TcUPEVHR6K8KI7VJvGVnH9517MYqJTD13E6OtplQSkIj1d9s7tspc21TeypAq7/O7VQcKejA=
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: 3513
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 7:48 PM, Daniel Pehoushek wrote:
-I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
-knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable
how can someone care so much about others opinions?

I must first make my point understood by continual improvement of the words of this point. I can only do this through trial-and-error with feedback.

Six months ago I had no way to clearly explain exactly why H(P,P)==0 is correct even though P(P) halts. I now have an irrefutable way to clearly explain this.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

Try reading the whole paper, if you are the author that you claim to be you should have the capacity to understand that it is correct, even though the form of this paper is not nearly in the ballpark of academic journal quality. Far too many people rank style over substance.


Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation --
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 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 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!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, 26 Jun 2021 20:08:26 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <C0_AI.793830$2A5.649020@fx45.iad> <udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <iDOBI.61670$k_.32646@fx43.iad> <KoKdnY2XsbfgX0r9nZ2dnUU7-SHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <LVPBI.259251$Ms7.201536@fx34.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:08:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <LVPBI.259251$Ms7.201536@fx34.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <EOOdnZeMpboXUkr9nZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 48
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dDImlD4Ds5pEwHm2Cvy76XTgXOlHj194fIub/bbYqSVCXSdgS02M+6vc5IUfOypNFETkKrcrqpdBMq2!BzPKXtSS53L7/p7amau2uPD2HHcJBHluccVAb5ROhh5ZnGWcfc0A8E31CGuM1OEsrXD6HkjS7JE=
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: 3924
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 12:23 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.

I don't spend 'that much' time at it, his comments are easy to rebut,
and I just check when I have spare time.

It also is a bit of mental exercise to keep things fit.

Although, I will admit sometimes feel a bit bad about fighting against
an unarmed man in the battle of wits.

He does have doggedly determined down pat though.


A not quite genius can out perform profoundly brilliant geniuses on a
specific task such as the halting problem when 10,000-fold more time and
effort is applied. By going over all the details enormously more times
than anyone else has patience for, details that were never noticed
before are uncovered.

Firing blanks again.

You have proved NOTHING.
Pearls before swine.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

This proves beyond all doubt that P(P) specifies a computation that does not halt.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation --
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:39 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.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, 26 Jun 2021 20:39:38 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad> <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:39:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 84
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LKKc/y5pNaW3hrEw2qMnHPR6zyvyQJy8EOLB/riSOp1gZX/txcOZi9ITBKSPKHRZJLe0DRp30iJ+MY6!yTOoRDWwSyRkba5pA8TTqs2x0KI4djdIvdYL8BIN0U1FG3I6wL5Ijf7OF90t9sPaPLXAisxpLnE=
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: 5190
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:


On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...

I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.


I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the irrefutable
reasoning that proves that I am correct.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

Yes, If H will never abort its P, then THAT P will be non-halting.

Problem is
That you do not understand that when one invocation of the connected
chain of invocations of infinite recursion int main(){ P(P); }

is aborted thus forcing the whole chain to halt, this does not mean that
int main(){ P(P); } does not specify a chain of infinite invocations.

Everyone here that is proficient at software engineering knows that I am
correct about this.


You say this, but refuse to answer the question of when this happens,
what happens to the execution path of the halt decider that made this
decision?


As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input never halts.

Remember, in this case, you have dectect the loop that includes BOTH P
and H in the loop. Thus this H is PART of the infinite chain that you
claim as ALL gone.

Did you machine just blow up?

Did it just abort the whole program?

Answer this for me, what actually happens.


As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input never halts.

This is correct and true no matter what else.

And then, what does this mean as the behavior of the actual Turing
Machine this is supposed to be the equivalent of?
 > I don't think you have an answer for this, as once you define what
happens here, we can show how that answer shows you machine was wrong.


As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input never halts.

This is correct and true no matter what else.

If X > Y && Y > Z then X > Z

We don't even need to know what X, Y, and Z are
and we don't need to know the criterion measure of >.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 01:55 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 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.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, 26 Jun 2021 20:55:53 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad> <fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <be-dndHQ27uMVkr9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <CkQBI.30842$e21.11398@fx02.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:55:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CkQBI.30842$e21.11398@fx02.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5PudnZb1TYI0R0r9nZ2dnUU7-fHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-UwIM/KbxMWeK/XNHUQO7KFIVTVXu/+BwYarNzcfoffuGTU8wTOH1xbKDNWEHWno4G9XRaQw2WLgHwZA!lw8W3TxmbHZjFIaioRIhqtvdCK63XEf4617tcaABXSj7Ha6ZJ0NWi2zUbS6INhriSGc3RwgoHHk=
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: 4760
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.


I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
knucklehead. It was not 2012.

I know.  I was point out that your attribution line was a lie.  You
probably have no idea what that means having only used Usenet for a few
decades.


Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.


Olcott is the emperor of the dishonest dodge, never answering the tough
questions put to him to acutally explain what he is saying,


I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

You know there is no rebuttal to this because it is an easily verifiable
fact, even Richard acknowledged that P(P) never halts:

On 6/25/2021 3:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

Yes, if H* is an element of the set of non-aborting deciders (Hn), P
will result in infinite recursion,

So you will misdirect with ad hominem and rhetoric because you know that
there is no plausible rebuttal using logic.


The error is a confusion of same named machines.


int Factorial(int n)
{
   if (n > 1)
     return n * Factorial(n - 1);
   else
     return 1;
}

That is not the way that recursion works.

void P(u32 x)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

When P called with the machine address of P invokes simulating halt decider H(P,P) P is invoking its own machine address in the same way that Factorial is invoking its own machine address.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(I dare you)
From: Chris M. Thomasson
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 03:03 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: chris.m....@gmail.com (Chris M. Thomasson)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(I dare you)
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 20:03:19 -0700
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <sb8ppn$18an$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87y2awkuia.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<be-dndHQ27uMVkr9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: NBiuIU74OKL7NpIOsbuNjQ.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...
I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a lie.


I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
knucklehead. It was not 2012.

I know.  I was point out that your attribution line was a lie.  You
probably have no idea what that means having only used Usenet for a few
decades.


Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.
Ben Bacarisse the king of dishonest dodges.

I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
I am daring you (or anyone else) to point out any error in the following.
[...]

Oh my! Wow, you really are nuts!? I am not a frequent commentator on your numerous nonsense threads, but wow. There are a lot of people that are trying their best to help you, big time! Why do you mock and insult them...? Wow!

;^/



Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:43 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 24
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, 27 Jun 2021 09:43:50 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 09:43:51 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RBmeHDwBKO0mDchTRUf2yF1abrVSsAgDbxL+UgqTPnY9dLXcZB0JyM33b+hJ712kQDOXxaQlelUfTz/!h6TJ8GTwSUMRs7WivRB70+TDPJKg0WOX0AC4LGDRsfeFnDDZHxp4APHNVuqk+gqCfOfD3gp0jZA=
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: 4572
View all headers
On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/26/21 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 12:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:


On 10/17/2006 7:03 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam@SeeScreen.com> writes:

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution...

I did not quote you saying that 2006.  That attribution line is a
lie.


I am just pointing out the date and time that you first spoke to me
knucklehead. It was not 2012. Then I go on to point out the
irrefutable
reasoning that proves that I am correct.

It is the case that P(P) has infinite execution unless one of its
infinite chain of invocations is aborted.

Yes, If H will never abort its P, then THAT P will be non-halting.

Problem is
That you do not understand that when one invocation of the connected
chain of invocations of infinite recursion int main(){ P(P); }

is aborted thus forcing the whole chain to halt, this does not mean that
int main(){ P(P); } does not specify a chain of infinite invocations.

Everyone here that is proficient at software engineering knows that I am
correct about this.


You say this, but refuse to answer the question of when this happens,
what happens to the execution path of the halt decider that made this
decision?


As long as we can know that P(P) specifies infinite recursion then we
know that H(P,P) did correctly abort its input an report that its input
never halts.


Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".

An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:00 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 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!tr3.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: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:00:42 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dumber than a box of rocks )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad> <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad> <n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad> <zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 13:00:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 46
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mXqRuWKP6HvbsXcLtRqh7wxewifWlpDlSa37ur8b8tjeGJvU1wXhXOcUtVIhVKwMqE9EkIMwnDX+YfW!MAKMaJ+Nq/kOtnR+/gZp5NET0+rNFaSt3Wzwv0o8mhI0TNTP/mxRnC7GZSnMXfNjFlZ2tinIQ+Q=
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: 3662
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:


Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".

An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.


Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
the Halting behavior of program B.

Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
programs, with just the smallest part of common code.


That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.

int Factorial(int n)
{
   if (n > 1)
     return n * Factorial(n - 1);
   else
     return 1;
}

This is what you forget.

Remember, you are using the Halting Problem defined for Turing Machines,
so you need to work under the rules of Turing Machines, and that means
that machine P includes ALL the code that is part of its algorithm,
which includes the H that it is built on.

I am only talking about the C/x86 version of H/P nitwit.


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng, comp.lang.c
Followup: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:56 UTC
References: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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, 27 Jun 2021 14:56:15 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:56:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 63
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lqUUeF0Zpap4QaxZ/7iYFDLaolIxBVXFxIYdHEPQ/qMsH44/aNM9vKCnngqIcoGyYCI4ilgVu+ZD8Zm!bqPbAaaU2oC1sZtb8ATOs4cbxs8JYDKrTunAa+DKA/qgpdgnI38/YiAoTQWD/5+GPus0+zZVj6Q=
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 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:

That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.

I don't appreciate the analogy.
Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?

Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.

Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
in its wake.


You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)

So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan roof at the break of dawn...

Mike.


It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the conventional halting problem counter-examples.

The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these rebuttals were incorrect.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation --
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:04 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 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.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: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:04:19 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad> <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad> <n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad> <zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad> <xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:04:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 94
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2YI8npj8scahwWxSvX/W1zV2PbIcOGFhK0ZyG1C1yBbjc/yZbUEPtjVASFMxZvhZvSlrcNtB+3RGJmG!D29p5xPs2aMaFE0OnzVpCxiu/yLIMNwGPFOJbIZji0/00z89ClhND78sSE9sDDfijE1ZSDUPl+Y=
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: 6004
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:


Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".

An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.


Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
the Halting behavior of program B.

Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
programs, with just the smallest part of common code.


That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.

Nonsense.

There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
different H's


That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent behavior to infinite recursion.

void P(u32 x)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

_P()
[00000b25](01)  55              push ebp
[00000b26](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00000b28](01)  51              push ecx
[00000b29](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b2c](01)  50              push eax
[00000b2d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000b30](01)  51              push ecx
[00000b31](05)  e81ffeffff      call 00000955
[00000b36](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
[00000b39](03)  8945fc          mov [ebp-04],eax
[00000b3c](04)  837dfc00        cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00000b40](02)  7402            jz 00000b44
[00000b42](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000b42
[00000b44](02)  8be5            mov esp,ebp
[00000b46](01)  5d              pop ebp
[00000b47](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00000b47]

Columns
(1) Machine address of instruction
(2) Machine address of top of stack
(3) Value of top of stack after instruction executed
(4) Machine language bytes
(5) Assembly language text
===============================
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b25
....[00000b25][002116fe][00211702](01)  55              push ebp
....[00000b26][002116fe][00211702](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
....[00000b28][002116fa][002016ce](01)  51              push ecx
....[00000b29][002116fa][002016ce](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00000b2c][002116f6][00000b25](01)  50              push eax
....[00000b2d][002116f6][00000b25](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[00000b30][002116f2][00000b25](01)  51              push ecx
....[00000b31][002116ee][00000b36](05)  e81ffeffff      call 00000955
....[00000b25][0025c126][0025c12a](01)  55              push ebp
....[00000b26][0025c126][0025c12a](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
....[00000b28][0025c122][0024c0f6](01)  51              push ecx
....[00000b29][0025c122][0024c0f6](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00000b2c][0025c11e][00000b25](01)  50              push eax
....[00000b2d][0025c11e][00000b25](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[00000b30][0025c11a][00000b25](01)  51              push ecx
....[00000b31][0025c116][00000b36](05)  e81ffeffff      call 00000955
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:26 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 24
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6da9:: with SMTP id u9mr14487917wrs.46.1624832800873;
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.128.88.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:26:35 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:26:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 138
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lkleE1bBoTm3F3ZEtt1+/vyPUsuIudio/ZjDnOSbmSgrflSFmtYJS5MnGmF/TRVc1olX+DU3+akSa3o!763cAU2cIhGDNciRux3sAGrJka8968xL0mlny46mY5Zhr3qWlRibi+hpC4AD4bZyncpQemW6ygU=
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: 7707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:

That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.

I don't appreciate the analogy.
Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?

Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.

Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
in its wake.


You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)

So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan roof at the break of dawn...

Mike.


It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the conventional halting problem counter-examples.

Rubbish.

There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!

I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that is just part of your delusion.

Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead of you.)


The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these rebuttals were incorrect.

No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other people think...)

If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to waste - best just get on with it!!


Mike.


void P(u32 x)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{
   P((u32)P);
}

I have now proven:

(1) The above computation does specify an infinite chain of invocations that is computationally equivalent to infinite recursion.

(2) Partial halt decider H correctly recognizes this infinite behavior pattern, correctly aborts its simulation of P and correctly reports that P(P) never halts.

The details are provided ion this paper:
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.

Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem and rhetoric.

I expect that you will come up with some excuse for not posting or simply ignore this challenge. The one thing that I do not expect from you is some half-baked nonsense.

You and Kaz are the only ones that never replied with any half-baked nonsense, all of the actual reasoning has been sound.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:46 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 24
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, 27 Jun 2021 17:46:58 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:46:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 74
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-fuJikrIaMhDHNrwEpApMLfbQLlZi+aPOPH5kl81ETVnFf8oo0DTwgr4Y9e1Swddfa3ZPzMRI0ARMgt7!5ZWQsHL1Ee/FTdEd3Lc3Cr6BV8rO/+IlgrQNRSTqZpE4skTb+CoJfkoAHRWp8A1heGQ5O650nEg=
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: 4826
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:


Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".

An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.


Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
the Halting behavior of program B.

Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
programs, with just the smallest part of common code.


That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.

Nonsense.

There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
different H's


That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
behavior to infinite recursion.

No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that

OK I will up the ante, you are a damned liar.

void P(u32 x)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

_P()
[00000b25](01)  55              push ebp
[00000b26](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00000b28](01)  51              push ecx
[00000b29](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b2c](01)  50              push eax
[00000b2d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000b30](01)  51              push ecx
[00000b31](05)  e81ffeffff      call 00000955
[00000b36](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
[00000b39](03)  8945fc          mov [ebp-04],eax
[00000b3c](04)  837dfc00        cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00000b40](02)  7402            jz 00000b44
[00000b42](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000b42
[00000b44](02)  8be5            mov esp,ebp
[00000b46](01)  5d              pop ebp
[00000b47](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00000b47]


--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:11 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 24
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, 27 Jun 2021 18:11:52 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
<gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:11:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <nfOdnW60hPElmET9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tCD0rKmCiMmZipkKnWYsAUHNg2Y62yBxY7GgSxgUe+vU8TOC/uAYCfK0p6ZVLA7ISjXhv0V6VbD098L!GoJk8ADt8e0AXI6mfr66V1rywH7b98vXmVeaDrNWup526vlNGz1XuU09wZ3w7niI8CwRbYB1/q4=
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: 4707
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:


Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do
not
understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".

An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.


Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to
determine
the Halting behavior of program B.

Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
programs, with just the smallest part of common code.


That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.

Nonsense.

There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
different H's


That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
behavior to infinite recursion.

No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that

OK I will up the ante, you are a damned liar.

That is the code for the FUNCTION P, not the complete code for the
MACHINE P.

If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be trying to prove
theorems about Turing Machines.

Call and Raise.


Finally a response that is not pure nonsense.

Because the behavior of VM P is entirely controlled by the machine language of function P your correct assessment is utterly moot.

Infinitely nested simulation is essentially exactly the same thing as infinite recursion with a few extra purely extraneous details mixed in.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:18 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 24
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.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: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:18:17 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me> <a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:18:17 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 144
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Ak4GL5mNNxqshfYSHYOtWQv5fFk256ZyWcd0Ea8cpGOqCV6dk/HVUtjzIZD7PJ6gHOpIPRnDnXMpeWp!Wm9BB8ZEqe5I+qP7pfgO2e0J0sjyPtSccyzOFgfu/XpYPZLbg6w5sQLrsk5HxBq0htTf7bTt/QI=
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: 7832
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/27/21 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:

That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
trying to
educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
conclusions. I
think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.

I don't appreciate the analogy.
Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
substitute?

Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.

Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
trawler leaves
in its wake.


You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)

So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
your caravan roof at the break of dawn...

Mike.


It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
the conventional halting problem counter-examples.

Rubbish.

There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!

I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that
is just part of your delusion.

Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation
rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead
of you.)


The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
does not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
rebuttals were incorrect.

No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would
guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time,
and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same
arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response
means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe
you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at
goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking
future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right,
because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is
automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other
people think...)

If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
waste - best just get on with it!!


Mike.


void P(u32 x)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{
   P((u32)P);
}

I have now proven:

(1) The above computation does specify an infinite chain of invocations
that is computationally equivalent to infinite recursion.

(2) Partial halt decider H correctly recognizes this infinite behavior
pattern, correctly aborts its simulation of P and correctly reports that
P(P) never halts.


No, you haven't.

You have shown that a P built on an H that doesn't recognizes this
behavior and thsu doesn't answer is non-Halting.

You have actually proved by providing a trace that the P that is built
on the H in (2) is Halting.

FAIL.


When a simulating halt decider stops simulating its input to prevent the infinite execution of this input this does not mean this forced to halt input does not specify infinite execution.

The infinite invocation chain specified by main() is aborted at its third invocation. As you already agreed if the infinite invocation chain specified by main() was never aborted it would never halt.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:38 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!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, 27 Jun 2021 20:38:56 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:38:57 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <F4edna4SP_OstUT9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 64
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QwHrSOfDGqsmO0z1lVuBJMhrlxet5NMrB5Q596DZsQQ2G05m3m3IG9APJzTnbYf50idVFSiOPyh4U64!yq0Hlf62TzIyZvKG7c4FTmhciT1OpiS3pWxyMQ+Z3ZtkpAA42F1k/kZFKLAaw2ftZfit9x/zfNw=
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: 5035
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 8:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/27/2021 2:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:

That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.

I don't appreciate the analogy.
Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?

Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.

Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
in its wake.

You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)

So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
roof at the break of dawn...

For the record, my objection was not so much being a rat per se, but
that the Pied Piper analogy makes the commentators the problem and PO
the hero.  A hero, in fact, who was cheated of his rightful reward!

His rightful (I assume that you have a good idea what rightful means) reward does not include technical responses to gibberish.

On 1/6/2015 1:05 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
 > Peter Olcott wrote on 1/6/2015 6:25 AM:

I removed my words here are your words:

 > Of course they cannot exist. UNDECIDABLE is not a property of a problem
 > instance, it's a property of a problem given a particular model of
 > problem instances and algorithms. So stop here. Your done because your
 > terminology is hopelessly broken. If you want to continue these
 > repetitive and off the wall threads, give a clear concise definition of
 > the representations of computation and how to emulate them. C and its
 > derivatives don't count for many many reasons: 1) the ANSI speck allows
 > the same lexical program to return different values in different (or the
 > same!!!) implementation 2) read point one again, 3) it's not a very
 > interesting computation model, in any event, compared to the members of
 > an expanded Chomsky hierarchy.

In other words you simply don't have the software engineering background to evaluate what I am saying on the basis of software engineering.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:44 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!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, 27 Jun 2021 20:44:29 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:44:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <W4GdnaFUZc3gtET9nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 121
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-x9QC9Guw6wFjlcNZrlAhnSCrNSQ7LJFQOSGWI3KLf00DUdAHhS12j2vINzKWswWxqr6t51aNWjC5bA7!IEi0rGpeHV3uzC9hu24Ybbp3JTc6EE1XVy6GQTt9gdFBahsDe6UxA+8WBr9EVmdCB/g+mwYNnk4=
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: 7477
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 8:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:

That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.

I don't appreciate the analogy.
Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?

Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.

Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
in its wake.


You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)

So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan roof at the break of dawn...

Mike.


It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the conventional halting problem counter-examples.

Rubbish.

There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!

I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that is just part of your delusion.

Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead of you.)


The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these rebuttals were incorrect.

No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other people think...)

If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to waste - best just get on with it!!


Mike.

<snip reposting of claims not related to my post>

If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.

I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even not read them.  It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.


I take this as a cop-out.
I am willing to re-read all of your posts to make sure.
At what point in time do you think that you made a sufficient rebuttal?



--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: olcott
Newsgroups: comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:40 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!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, 27 Jun 2021 21:40:24 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:40:24 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <fcWdnZCT3eYFq0T9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 135
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EtixNGH75PxggUas8HLFi3BJYGuctvbZa1mO+EY/AJLOXXeJIGg2xMtKD5W9vLT4kRSEBGeq7wVkUcK!ammjqpZCbhphdx6QXd17JLerKitQQ0UYt2mcH0s+b44AOEsHdYS0wzSXafU6t4FIr7YORfIenUI=
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: 8107
View all headers
On 6/27/2021 8:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:

That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.

I don't appreciate the analogy.
Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?

Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.

Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
in its wake.


You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)

So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan roof at the break of dawn...

Mike.


It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the conventional halting problem counter-examples.

Rubbish.

There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!

I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that is just part of your delusion.

Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead of you.)


The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these rebuttals were incorrect.

No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other people think...)

If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to waste - best just get on with it!!


Mike.

<snip reposting of claims not related to my post>

If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.

I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even not read them.  It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.

YOU want everybody here to continue posting for you, using up their own time for your benefit while you go round and round in circles forever, reposting the same beliefs and simply ignoring the responses.  I'm not interested in doing that.


Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem and rhetoric.

It was not a comment on your specific technical arguments - that's been done elsewhere.

I just responded to your "rebuttal".
All that you did was dismiss what I said out-of-hand.

This time I provided all of the actual code that proves that the conclusion of my sound deductive inference is correct.

That you reject sound deductive inference as proof seems to show that you are a style-over-substance kind of guy.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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


Pages:123456
rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor