On 6/22/2021 12:13 PM, wij wrote:
> 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'

Of course H does not do what P exactly does, H is a simulator and P is
not a simulator.

>> 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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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