On 4/23/22 1:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/23/2022 12:42 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 01:35:47 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/23/2022 12:29 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 01:20:23 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/2022 12:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:52:00 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/23/2022 11:43 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:34:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2022 11:29 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:05:19 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2022 10:58 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 22:49:59 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers expect H(P,P) to compute the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of P(P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet the behavior specified by the input to H(P,P) is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer
>>>>>>>>>>>> program and an input, whether the program will finish
>>>>>>>>>>>> running, or continue to run forever
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If using this common concept, the halting decider H, when
>>>>>>>>>>>> given an argument P
>>>>>>>>>>>> (or P P), is supposed to answer whether P(P) will halt or
>>>>>>>>>>>> not. This is a very
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple, easy idea to understand even for teenager students.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When this very simple idea is very rigorously examined (as it
>>>>>>>>>>> is in my
>>>>>>>>>>> paper) one sees that this requires the halt decider to be a
>>>>>>>>>>> mind reader
>>>>>>>>>>> and compute the halt status other than the actual halt status
>>>>>>>>>>> specified
>>>>>>>>>>> by its actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your wording/interpretations/paper change all the time. No
>>>>>>>>>> idea what this new
>>>>>>>>>> excuse 'mind reader' might mean. As said, the Halting Problem
>>>>>>>>>> is very simple
>>>>>>>>>> and intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>> H should be a decider that computes the actual halt status of
>>>>>>>>>> P(P). P is the
>>>>>>>>>> H's actual argument input.
>>>>>>>>>> I expect you might try to find some bugs of those descriptions
>>>>>>>>>> to rephrasing it
>>>>>>>>>> in your favor. But, what would be the point? What is the
>>>>>>>>>> usefulness of POOP?
>>>>>>>>> Yet when you carefully examine my paper:
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that is an expert in the C programming language, the x86
>>>>>>>>> programming language, exactly how C translates into x86 and
>>>>>>>>> what an x86
>>>>>>>>> processor emulator is can easily verify that the correctly
>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) by H specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>> (V5)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simply ignoring the verified facts is a ridiculously foolish
>>>>>>>>> was to form
>>>>>>>>> any actual rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You already verified the fact that H(P,P) will be in an infinite
>>>>>>>> recursive call
>>>>>>>> (thus, undecidable). Why you say H(P,P)==false (or true)?
>>>>>>> You might make a wild guess like this if you make sure to hardly pay
>>>>>>> attention. When you actually pay close attention and carefully
>>>>>>> study my
>>>>>>> paper it is very easy to see that H sees the same infinitely
>>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>>> pattern that we see, thus can abort its simulation and reject its
>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>>>>>> address address data code language
>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>>>>>> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>>>>> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>>>>> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>>>>> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>>>>> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>>>>> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>>>>> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>>>>> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
>>>>>> Stopped" means
>>>>>> your x86utm emulator has encountered an infinite recursive call.
>>>>>> This is referred to as "undecidable". This is the fact.
>>>>> So you are saying that after H makes the correct halt status decision
>>>>> that this correct halt status decision is impossible to make.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is just like my example a smashing a Boston cream pie in your
>>>>> face
>>>>> and while this pie drips from your face you deny that the pie exists.
>>>>
>>>> Your H did not show 'correct decision' but 'unreachable' (exactly
>>>> what the HP says).
>>>>
>>>> This is like "0.999..." (or repeating decimal) problems: Infinite
>>>> repeating
>>>> simply means INFINITE repeating. Please, respect what it is.
>>> H simulates its input one x86 instruction at a time using an x86
>>> emulator. As soon as H(P,P) detects the same infinitely repeating
>>> pattern (that we can all see), it aborts its simulation and rejects its
>>> input.
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>
>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
>> Your H shows 'undecidable'. There is no branching codes shown.
>
> Without seeing any of the details of the 264 pages of the execution
> trace of H we can verify on the basis of the x86 source code for P and
> the execution trace that H derives that H does correctly simulate its
> input until it detects the same infinitely repeating pattern that we all
> can see.
>
>

No, because we can see that H returns 0, while the simulated H is
decided to never return.

Thus H is either incorrect in its simulation, or H is not a computation,
and thus not a decider.