On 6/22/2021 7:31 PM, wij wrote:
> 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.
>

Anyone that simply understands what I am saying in this paper regarding
my C/x86 proof can easily verify that I am correct.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

> 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.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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