Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V15

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V15olcott
`- Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V15olcott

1
Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V15

<TeidndnwvpcT6gn8nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7596&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7596

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 21:31:26 -0600
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 21:31:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.1
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Content-Language: en-US
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Subject: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V15
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <TeidndnwvpcT6gn8nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BSbW3oFkADGc2sNb4SAHnUmwPJBXGADT8ZY7RMdOuUYfIn4D/dTck3+K0O6A/yVNvQ5i/qweCEmiS3D!kktOf1J5omyuWAwCUWegLbGVm6y2zwP1tvgvAZIyoAvpPlur7ljGpLkXdh8kTbH3HSOVqKOF3Yom!3g==
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: 1682
 by: olcott - Wed, 17 Nov 2021 03:31 UTC

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

int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{ x(y); // direct execution of P(P)
return 1;
}

// Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
int P(ptr x)
{ H(x, x);
return 1;
}

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

For every H that simulates or executes its input and aborts or does not
abort its input P never reaches its last instruction.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V15

<z_GdnZvTsfBdkwj8nZ2dnUU7-KPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=7597&group=comp.ai.philosophy#7597

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 08:16:32 -0600
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 08:16:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.3.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V15
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <TeidndnwvpcT6gn8nZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<y8%kJ.45407$np6.37544@fx46.iad>
<le-dncRv76roFwn8nZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YC5lJ.146289$I%1.24041@fx36.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <YC5lJ.146289$I%1.24041@fx36.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <z_GdnZvTsfBdkwj8nZ2dnUU7-KPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 120
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Y4Ayg3Yg6L6MXrHvUXVAd63YYLhtTUxY/7AhXCYVbKXnw3sxh+JXDH7lQnz4rRuF52e3YDZMTgunsvP!3084C6aFORiM/edjnnE3smL5wn/KjD4lxbjBZ9fJLwsIq0/4I47GXN44U544PgWe8t3qLCWa5zZ+!PQ==
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: 5138
 by: olcott - Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:16 UTC

On 11/17/2021 5:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/16/21 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/16/2021 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/16/21 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>
>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y)
>>>> {
>>>>    x(y);  // direct execution of P(P)
>>>>    return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> // Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
>>>> // and Strachey(1965) P
>>>> int P(ptr x)
>>>> {
>>>>    H(x, x);
>>>>    return 1;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main(void)
>>>> {
>>>>    H(P, P);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> For every H that simulates or executes its input and aborts or does
>>>> not abort its input P never reaches its last instruction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> LIE.
>>>
>>>
>>> First, the H you have defined above can NOT abort its processing of
>>> its input, so you have a LIE in your specification.
>>>
>>
>> The only one that came to mind is executing in as debugger.
>
> Your H as Shown is NOT "executing in as a debugger", so still lying.
>

I show one H and the list the rest as hypothetical possibilities:

For every H that simulates or executes its input and aborts or does
not abort its input P never reaches its last instruction.

This allows be to correctly analyze the behavior of P that is executed /
simulated by an infinite set of differently encoded x86 machine language
representations of H. This whole [categorically exhaustively complete
reasoning] thing seems far far too difficult for you to understand.

>>
>>> Second, By your own definition, the 'Halting' property of the input
>>> needs to be determined by a PURE SIMULATION or DIRECT EXECUTION of
>>> that input.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. I am only talking about a human bench checking what would
>> occur under the infinite set of specified H/P
>
>
> Right, and you LIE, as if H is one of the H's that does abort its input
> so it can return 0, and thus be a finite execution itself, that the P
> that corresponds to that H is also finite, and thus the answer 0 is WRONG.
>
> This is easily seen by just applying YOUR DEFINITION of halting, and
> directly executing P(P) which YOU LIE by calling that a strawman.
>
>>
>>> An H that aborts its processing does NOT meet that requirement.
>>>
>>
>> For every H that
>> simulates or
>> executes its input and
>> aborts or
>> does not abort its input
>> P never reaches its last instruction.
>>
>
> LIE.
>
> If you statement refers to the ACTUAL behavior of the input, then it is
> a LIE as I have previosly shown, as P(P) WILL halt for any H that does
> aborts its input.
>
> If you statement refers to the behavior of the input as seen by H, then
> the statement is a LIE because you subject says you are talking about
> the Halting Problem, and that behavior has nothing to do with the
> Halting Problem if H does abort its operation.
>
>>
>>> If you do have an H that aborts its processing and returns 0, then if
>>> we follow your definition and check that input by pure simulation or
>>> direct execution (using something like you H above, but not changing
>>> the H that P uses) then we see that P(P) will Halt.
>>>
>>> If H does NOT abort its processing then yes, H does show that the
>>> input for this case is non-halting, but never returns that value, so
>>> fails to be a decider.
>>>
>>> Your 'PROOF' that H is correct is just a LIE.
>>>
>>> Yes, no H sees its processing of its input get to the last
>>> instruction, but if H actually does say that P(P) is non-halting then
>>> that P(P) will be halting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor