On 6/22/2021 12:16 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:14:01 UTC+8, 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'
>>> 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
>
> Your H does not do what P exactly does. That you claim that it 'simulate'
> proves that it is wrong.
>

H is a simulator and P is not a simulator therefore if H did exactly
what P does H would be wrong. H does show exactly what P does.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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