On 11/19/2021 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/19/21 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> typedef int (*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;  // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
>> }
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>>    H(P, P);
>> }
>>
>> computation that halts
>> a computation is said to halt whenever it enters a final state.
>> (Linz:1990:234)
>>
>> PSR set:
>> Combinations of H/P having pathological self-reference
>> For every possible H of H(P,P) invoked from main() where P(P) calls
>> this same H(P,P) and H simulates or executes its input and aborts or
>> does not abort its input P never reaches its last instruction.
>>
>> PSR subset:
>> Because we know that the input to H(P,P) never halts for the whole PSR
>> set and a subset of these H/P combinations aborts the execution or
>> simulation of its input then we know that for this entire subset the
>> input to H(P,P) never halts and P(P) halts.
>>
>> This conclusively proves when the input to H(P,P) never halts and the
>> same P(P) does halt that this does not form a contradiction.
>>
>
> ??? Since the input to H(P,P) IS P(P) it can't do both.
>
> You seem to mean that if the partial simulation done by H while
> processing H(P,P) never reaches its halting state is not a contradiction
> to the execution of P(P) reaching such a halting state.
>
> That is true, but since the definition of the right answer to the
> halting problem is the latter, claiming the the partial simulation gives
> the right answer isn't a contradiction, it is just a out and out LIE and
> a FALSEHOOD.
>
> Fundamentally, you just don't understand what this 'input' stuff means.
>
> FAIL you liar.

I have finally specified my point precisely and clearly enough that any
competent software engineer can totally understand what I am saying even
with no knowledge of computer science or the halting problem.

On this basis I have totally proved that I know what "input" is in that
the above H(P,P) does directly invoke P(P).

>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V2)
>> November 2021 PL Olcott
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 11/19/2021 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/19/21 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/19/2021 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/19/21 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> typedef int (*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;  // Give P a last instruction at the "c" level
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main(void)
>>>> {
>>>>    H(P, P);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> computation that halts
>>>> a computation is said to halt whenever it enters a final state.
>>>> (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>
>>>> PSR set:
>>>> Combinations of H/P having pathological self-reference
>>>> For every possible H of H(P,P) invoked from main() where P(P) calls
>>>> this same H(P,P) and H simulates or executes its input and aborts or
>>>> does not abort its input P never reaches its last instruction.
>>>>
>>>> PSR subset:
>>>> Because we know that the input to H(P,P) never halts for the whole
>>>> PSR set and a subset of these H/P combinations aborts the execution
>>>> or simulation of its input then we know that for this entire subset
>>>> the input to H(P,P) never halts and P(P) halts.
>>>>
>>>> This conclusively proves when the input to H(P,P) never halts and
>>>> the same P(P) does halt that this does not form a contradiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ??? Since the input to H(P,P) IS P(P) it can't do both.
>>>
>>> You seem to mean that if the partial simulation done by H while
>>> processing H(P,P) never reaches its halting state is not a
>>> contradiction to the execution of P(P) reaching such a halting state.
>>>
>>> That is true, but since the definition of the right answer to the
>>> halting problem is the latter, claiming the the partial simulation
>>> gives the right answer isn't a contradiction, it is just a out and
>>> out LIE and a FALSEHOOD.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally, you just don't understand what this 'input' stuff means.
>>>
>>> FAIL you liar.
>>
>>
>> I have finally specified my point precisely and clearly enough that
>> any competent software engineer can totally understand what I am
>> saying even
>> with no knowledge of computer science or the halting problem.
>>
>> On this basis I have totally proved that I know what "input" is in that
>> the above H(P,P) does directly invoke P(P).
>
> So, I guess you are lying about working on the Halting Problem of
> Computation theory and that your results apply to it.
>
> The 'Input' to a Halt Decider MUST BE a description of the Computation
> that the decider is to answer about.

Actually this is incorrect in the case where the input to the halt
decider specifies a [sequence of configurations] that never halts.

computation
The sequence of configurations leading to a halt state will be called a
computation. (Linz:1990:238)

In the case of the x86 language we could provide the assembly language
source code as the "description" of a [sequence of configurations] or we
could simply provide the actual x86 machine code. Thus this description
is also directly executable.

In any case the input to H is shown to be directly executed and any
competent software engineer like you can tell that this same input could
also be simulated by an x86 emulator.

>>>>
>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V2)
>>>> November 2021 PL Olcott
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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