On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:08:26 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2021 12:02 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 22 June 2021 at 22:06:42 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >> On 6/22/2021 6:52 AM, wij wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 23:37:49 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 6/21/2021 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 21:47:51 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/21/2021 2:46 AM, wij wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, 21 June 2021 at 12:15:27 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If you see an animal and test its DNA and confirm that it is definitely
> >>>>>>>> a cat, what happens when the cat barks?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When we examine the behavior of the Peter Linz Ĥ applied to its own
> >>>>>>>> Turing machine description: ⟨Ĥ⟩ and simply assume that the embedded halt
> >>>>>>>> decider at its internal state of Ĥ.qx is a UTM then we find that this
> >>>>>>>> machine has infinitely nested simulation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> >>>>>>>> Every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a
> >>>>>>>> computation that never halts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SELF-EVIDENT-TRUTH
> >>>>>>>> The <Ĥ> <Ĥ> input to the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx is a computation
> >>>>>>>> that never halts unless its simulation is aborted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ∴ IMPOSSIBLY FALSE CONCLUSION
> >>>>>>>> The embedded simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx correctly decides its
> >>>>>>>> input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is a computation that never halts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The above three elements essentially provide the DNA of the cat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I said the question is very simple:
> >>>>>>> You have to show a correct implement (pseudo-code is OK) of the function
> >>>>>>> "bool HaltDecider(Func f, Arg a)". This is a MUST.
> >>>>>>> Other things (paper/talk) are auxiliary.
> >>>>>> I have done that six months ago using different naming conventions..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a very great achievement, deserves 3 Nobel Prizes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quoting the paper makes me baffled completely. It to me just is like searching for a set of
> >>>>> codes using 'simulator', not a good strategy while static code analyzer is sufficient.
> >>>> This is my paper that I wrote that has the code that you asked for.
> >>>>
> >>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> >>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>> {
> >>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> >>>> if (Input_Halts)
> >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> >>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> H is a simulating halt decider based on an x86 emulator. I spent nearly
> >>>> two years creating the x86utm operating system so that I could implement H.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Evading this 'simple' question is taken as "No, my proof can't stand such a test".
> >>>>>>> Therefore... everything you have said is.... you imagine it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>> --
> >>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>>>
> >>>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >>>> minds." Einstein
> >>>
> >>> Your proof may be 100% correct. But it only valid for your instance P..
> >>> I think you mis-interpreted the conventional HP proof.
> >>>
> >> When we compare the conventional pseudo-code to my C code that statement
> >> seem ridiculously stupid.
> >>
> >> procedure compute_g(i):
> >> if f(i, i) == 0 then
> >> return 0
> >> else
> >> loop forever // (Wikipedia:Halting Problem)
> >> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> >> void P(u32 x)
> >> {
> >> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> >> if (Input_Halts)
> >> HERE: goto HERE;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> u32 Input_Halts = H((u32)P, (u32)P);
> >> Output("Input_Halts = ", Input_Halts);
> >> }
> >>> I have shown an instance P that simulates H in different way(H2) will make H
> >>> behave incorrectly. The conventional HP proof can be demonstrated in C-like
> >> If it is not a pure simulation then it is wrong and all pure simulations
> >> must be identical.
> >
> > H2 is designed to simulate H in different way.
> > Why anyone's simulation of H2 is not a pure simulation while your H is?
> >
> Every simulation that is not a pure simulation is a wrong simulation.
> If your simulation is not a pure simulation then it is wrong.
>
> If your simulation is a pure simulation then it cannot possibly differ
> from any other pure simulation. That you claim that it is different
> proves that it is wrong.

Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
> proves that it is wrong.

> >>> pseudo-code which is more useful, applicable, most people can comprehend
> >>> immediately. A refutation should be capable of being demonstrated in the same way.
> >>>
> >>> From software engineering point of view, your proof is 'optimized' too soon
> >>> to the lowest level (assembly, TM). Creating a x86utm operating system makes
> >>> no sense to refute HP. Beside, to refute, the 'x86utm operating system' (all) has to
> >>> be present in the paper for peer to reproduce the result.
> >>>
> >> It is enormously easier to analyze the ready made directed graphs of
> >> control flow that assembly language provides rather than have to build
> >> these directed graphs from scratch manually. Any unbroken cycle in a
> >> directed graph is infinite execution that must be aborted.
> >> --
> >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> >>
> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> >> minds." Einstein
> >
> > You fabricated a halt-decider which only works in your head.
> >
> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
> minds." Einstein