On 9/22/2022 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 9/22/22 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/22/2022 8:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/22/22 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2022 8:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/22 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2022 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/22/22 12:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2022 7:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/22 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2022 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/22 7:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2022 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/22 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2022 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 10:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 8:10 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demented crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 7:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/2022 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/20/22 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an explanation of a possible new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insight into the halting problem provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the language of software engineering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technical computer science terms are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained using software engineering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms. No knowledge of the halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is required.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the conventional “pathological” input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (that does the opposite of whatever the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider decides) is the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument to a simulating halt decider then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input becomes decidable as specifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except it doesn't as if H is a Decider, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BE DEFINITION has finite behavior so NO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CALL to it can be "infinite"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another way that we can say this is that P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies behavior that would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, because P DOES reach its final state when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // H(P,P) does not reach a final state when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    x(y);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I keep correcting you and you keep dishonestly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forgetting these corrections. *That is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main reason that it seems you may be a liar*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The liar is the one who uses H as a unique name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to qualify different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functions. Make up your mind about how H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to be an halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider and you'll see that you cannot avoid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard's objection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to your silliness. Which the main argument for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such an H not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist in the first place. Word salad won't help
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are the liar, Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every correct halt decider H must predict the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its own direct execution of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input even though it does not perform a direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that statement is illogical because it asks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what would happen if something does something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it doesn't do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider can correctly predict that an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop never halts without executing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you act like you keep forgetting this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either dishonest or you actually keep forgetting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, thus dementia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but if the loop isn't infinite (or not even a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop), it is incorrect to predict that it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you AGREE that P(P) will Halt if H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of every input P to every H that either simulates or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executes its input no H ever returns anything to P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FROM ITS INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To an accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, the input is the representation of P and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the actual behavior of the actual executed or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means, for H(P,P) the running of P(P) or UTM(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as independent computaitons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is only allowed to report on the behavior that it sees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is NOT allowed to report on behavior that it does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. That isn't the definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it is. A halt decider must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input to an accept or reject state based on the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by the direct execution of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right *THE* not *ITS* direct execution of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the behavior of executing its input as a totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not the input thus not a direct execution of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main() { P(P); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, That IS the direct execution of its input per your model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because this is not the actual input to H, and its behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not the same as the behavior of this actual input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>> then it violates the principle that a halt decider must
>>>>>>>>>>>> report on the actual behavior of its actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it IS its actual input, as specified by its representation.
>>>>>>>>>> All that "representation" actually means is that the halt
>>>>>>>>>> decider examines a finite string encoding of a Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>> thus not the Turing machine itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It certainly does not mean that the halt decider must examine
>>>>>>>>>> the mental idea that you have about what the input does.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that it does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remember the DEFINITION that you are quoting from Linz.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the actual input is not specified by the
>>>>>>>> behavior of non-inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus not by the simulation of the input with a different version
>>>>>>> of H, like your "Set of H" does.
>>>>>> Zero elements of Hx/Px pairs correctly simulated by Hx reach their
>>>>>> final state thus zero elements of the Hx/Px pairs halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SO?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void Px(ptr x)
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = Hx(x, x);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Zero Px elements of Hx/Px pairs correctly simulated by Hx reach their
>>>> final state thus zero Px elements of the Hx/Px pairs halt.
>>>>
>>>> Thus the conventional "impossible" input is correctly determined to
>>>> be non-halting, thus not proof of HP undecidability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>
>> All of the HP proofs fail to prove undecidability.
>>
>
> Why do you say that?
I showed all of the details required to correctly determine the halt
status of the "impossible" input. This "impossible" input is the basis
of all of these proofs.

Complete halt deciding system
https://liarparadox.org/2022_09_07.zip

Compiles under Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2017
https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/vs/older-downloads/

The provided infinite recursion detector and corresponding test code has
been slightly adapted so that this slightly adapted behavior pattern can
be applied to P. This H/P are one element of the infinite set of Hx/Px
pairs.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer