On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 05:20:02 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2022 3:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:51:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/9/2022 3:27 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:18:04 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/9/2022 12:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:18:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/9/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:39:59 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 11:30 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:06:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 11:02 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:31:16 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 10:20:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2022 8:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:08:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2022 7:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 8:19:40 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2022 6:35 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:14:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2022 5:47 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2022 8:07 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2022 7:11 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting theorem follows, trivially, from lots of simpler theorems,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> none of which have you bothered to read. In Linz, the theorem is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presented as a corollary of a simpler theorem in chapter 11.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11.3, 11.4, and 11.5. I will look at them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Goodness! A good move. Why the change of heart?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is enough progress now that I don't have to have an absolutely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single-minded focus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Progress?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS AN EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H() and H1() take the machine code of P as input parameters and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly compute the mapping from this input to an accept ore reject
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state on the basis of the actual behavior that these inputs actually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But H does not decide the halting of P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int N , int M)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return (N + M);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not supposed to in the same way that sum(3,4) is not supposed to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the sum of (5,7).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is this so difficult for you?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that if anyone insisted that sum(3,4) must return the value of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sum(5,7) that they are wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you insist that H(P,P) must return the value of H(Pn,Pn)?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The definition of decider requires it to based its decision on whatever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input specifies.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which in the case of H(P,P) is *defined* to be P(P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case it is the same as if {dogs} are defined to be {cats}.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So no rebuttal, just a bad analogy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both H(P,P) and H1(P,P) use this exact literal byte string as their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input therefore it seems enormously dishonest of you to refer to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same literal string using different subscripts indicating a difference
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the same string with itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I was saying is that you think that H sees infinite simulation which only exists in Pn(Pn)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All that crazy bullshit about subscripted names of subscripts is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extremely deceptive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, just the opposite. It makes it clear *exactly* which computation we're talking about, so it prevents YOU from being deceptive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am ONLY referring to this literal string:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as x86 machine code correctly simulated by H(P,P) and H1(P,P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No you're not. You're also referring to the literal string which is the fixed code of H which aborts as that is part of the program P. So from here on, we'll refer to H as Ha and P as Pa to make that point clear.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only referring to this literal string:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an input to H(P,P) and H1(P,P). It is 100% perfectly concrete
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly impervious to even extremely well-crafted attempts at deception
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the strawman error. Any attempt to get around this will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> construed as (and labeled) a bald-faced lie by a bald-faced liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That string is 100% NOT concrete because it doesn't specify the function that it is calling.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I did not freaking say that this finite string specifies every freaking
> >>>>>>>>>>>> detail of the whole freaking system nitwit. This finite string as x86
> >>>>>>>>>>>> code specifies every one of its own bytes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not the whole system, just the computation to be decided on, and that computation includes the FIXED code of H that aborts its simulation, i.e. Ha.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thee is no Pa, Pb, Pc, there is only this P:
> >>>>>>>>>> 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So if that's enough information to decide on, then tell me if this halts:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> void F()
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> X()
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) and H1(P,P) where P is this literal
> >>>>>>>> string as x86 machine language:
> >>>>>>>> 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, not a complete computation, so not enough information to decide on. You seem to think that all "P" constructs are the same no matter how different the H it is built on is.
> >>>>>> Within the context of my paper it is a complete computation for H(P,P).
> >>>>>> I am updating the paper to include H1(P,P).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So if H is the *specific* decider that can detect infinite simulation in Pn(Pn), then we'll refer to it as Ha to clarify that point, and we'll refer to the P that calls it as Pa to clarify.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I am talking about the literal string of "H" being applied to this
> >>>> literal string: 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3
> >>>>
> >>>> and
> >>>>
> >>>> The literal string of "H1" being applied to this literal string:
> >>>> 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3
> >>>
> >>> And to complete the computation being evaluated, what is the *exact*, FIXED algorithm of H? If it is Ha, then Ha(Pa,Pa) == false is wrong as demonstrated by Hb(Pa,Pa) == true.
> >>>
> >>> If H is using some other algorithm, then specify the *exact* algorithm.
> >> H and H1 are both literal byte strings that emulate their literal byte
> >> string input in pure x86 emulation mode until the behavior of this
> >> emulated literal byte string input shows that it would never reach its
> >> own final state (0xc3 ret instruction).
> >
> > So in other words, the fixed algorithm of H looks for what it thinks is infinite simulation. So H is Ha, which means P is Pa.
> >
> > Hb can then be constructed to simulate for k more steps than Ha and calculate Hb(Pa,Pa) == true, proving Ha(Pa,Pa) == false wrong.
> 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
>
> The fact that P calls the same function from its same machine address
> with identical input parameters conclusively proves that P is stuck in
> infinite recursion.
> --
> 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 coding is invalid, because H is now shown to exist.