On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 01:22:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> 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

H2 would do functionally exactly the same H does (H2 can show exactly what H
does), whatever you call H is (pure?). Manipulating descriptive words is not a
good sign you honestly want to understand the issues of your proof.

Since you made your refutation a real program (this is very good), but it
can't stand real tests in my estimate.
In any cases, reviewer need to duplicate your running program to reproduce
your result and claim. Everything else is just talk.

There are tons of undecidable problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems
But I don't think you understand the meaning of your proof.