On 5/9/2022 6:11 PM, wij wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 07:03:08 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/9/2022 5:53 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 06:44:15 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2022 5:34 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 06:18:31 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 4:51 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> I provide all of the details proving that this H does exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I don't think anyone had ever seen one.
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>
>>> "H is here" does not mean "I provide all of the details proving that this H does exist."
>>> Where is your H that can stand the HP test?
>> We can verify that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input on the basis that
>> the execution trace provided by H exactly matches the behavior specified
>> by the x86 source-code of P.
>> _P()
>> [00001352](01) 55 push ebp
>> [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001358](01) 50 push eax
>> [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [0000135c](01) 51 push ecx
>> [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>> [00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>> [00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
>> [00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
>> [0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [0000136c](01) c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>
>> The execution trace that H(P,P) bases its halt status decision on
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:25cd7a
>> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50 push eax
>> ...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51 push ecx
>> ...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> ...[00001352][002a778e][002a7792] 55 push ebp // enter P
>> ...[00001353][002a778e][002a7792] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> ...[00001355][002a778e][002a7792] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> ...[00001358][002a778a][00001352] 50 push eax // push P
>> ...[00001359][002a778a][00001352] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> ...[0000135c][002a7786][00001352] 51 push ecx // push P
>> ...[0000135d][002a7782][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address
>> with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite
>> recursion non-halting behavior pattern.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> This is not H (a halting decider).

It does correctly decide the one "impossible" input basis of all of the
proofs, thus refuting all of these proofs.

> To refute HP, a H has to exist to refute. If H does not exist, no rebuttal.
> Show your H to prove the rebuttal of conventional HP proof.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer