Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

In 1869 the waffle iron was invented for people who had wrinkled waffles.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ]

<P82dncRZ0YI6J8X_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=8394&group=comp.ai.philosophy#8394

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:21:58 -0500
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:21:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
liar by definition ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7b81816c-4864-4357-917b-a111f9abb626n@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSVY8pdCG8r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f2e6908-8a31-4cd2-b6b5-d2bc155cd92cn@googlegroups.com>
<I5KdnSRY8perFcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<346bc4f2-37f6-4b50-88a2-0d0585a72456n@googlegroups.com>
<_rSdnZNXUoDvFsr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f9a2fa84-9b92-4a78-8080-642f84f60558n@googlegroups.com>
<36udnR0ZM4ihEMr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0473bee1-bd4b-4e09-9f29-f928f7b0e47fn@googlegroups.com>
<mdSdnSErnKmXDcr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<f70d6e89-5fe4-4e4c-b7a8-52efeba6e22cn@googlegroups.com>
<bs2dnbLYgLTrDMr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e1a3f5df-93e6-4b02-823f-739eb49417f1n@googlegroups.com>
<v_-dnfRAdeowCcr_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ca64aa02-662a-4cb4-b528-da2109066335n@googlegroups.com>
<ieidnfSoTfZdCsr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7891db88-8b20-4fed-a88f-a2aeb51795e1n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <7891db88-8b20-4fed-a88f-a2aeb51795e1n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <P82dncRZ0YI6J8X_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 298
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-spBx2SAts2N59ggT2CPgyBP+j6NuhSxrbzaT9GEcU5x7QJMQnyVwfT/wbHyKDepYJJJ33sXkf1dwXqj!EFYO1v1RFhxoD0uWPj5CBTC5kw/yHicntOghq0HtpoQsNBpl1Gaz3C7fAd1jv/HejJvWQ4BWniuc
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 20718
 by: olcott - Fri, 15 Apr 2022 00:21 UTC

On 4/14/2022 6:55 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:40:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/13/2022 10:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:27:49 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:14:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 11:08:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 10:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:56:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:50 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:48:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:34:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:28:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 9:14 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:06:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:35:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:25 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:23:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 11:09:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:59:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:56 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:53:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 10:06:02 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 9:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 7:49 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2022 8:06 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P). It turns out that intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So which fact are you retracting? That P(P) halts or that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the final state of this input then we know that it never halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you plan to keep posting the same sentence in an attempt to take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the focus off the fact that H is obviously wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you must mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHOOP! WHOOP! WHOOP! Danger Will Robinson.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should avoid trying to paraphrase other people. Your replies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest you don't often understand the various points being put to you,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so when you try to re-word them the results are usually bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a correctly simulated input that would never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is still a computation that halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant what I said. If you are not sure that I meant, asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well-chosen questions about it is the way to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know [by definition] that a correctly simulated input that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own final state is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the definition of halting is incorrect?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) does reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating [00000956] to [00000961] until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above keeps repeating until aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when Hb simulates this input, it reaches a final state. Therefore H is wrong to report non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A dishonest attempt at the strawman fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill up the street did not rob the liquor store I know this because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other guy that I know named Bill was watching TV at the time of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> robbery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you have no rebuttal because you know that Hb(P,P) == true is correct and proves that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hb(P,P) is off topic because it proves nothing and you know that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves nothing and is just a disgusting attempt at a head game.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not off topic because it directly contradicts your desired result. That you haven't explained why it's wrong is a confirmation of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why I focus on the X proves Y
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (X) We can verify that the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, because an incorrect simulation is not the same as a turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Y) When H(P,P) returns false it is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FALSE, as proved by Hb(P,P) returning true for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I CAN'T POSSIBLY BE WRONG UNLESS THERE IS AN ESSENTIAL MISTAKE IN X OR Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the simulated input to H(P,P) fails to meet the definition of halting, then Ha3(N,5) also fails to meet that same definition of halting. So that along shows that your criteria is bogus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see that you don't want this dialogue to continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not tolerate head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Translation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I will not tolerate arguments that conclusively prove me wrong because I can't bear the though of having wasted the last 17 years".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are trying to prove that Bill Smith is not guilty because Bill Jones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another bad analogy. Further proof that you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That H(P,P)==false is correct is true by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that Hb(P,P)==true is correct by logical necessity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will dumb it down for you: (Do not not believe in tautologies ?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is isn't as Hb demonstrates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you didn't bother to explain why my explanation is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If an X <is a> Y and Dennis disagrees then Dennis is a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still no explanation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is non-halting and Dennis
>>>>>>>>>>>> denies this therefore Dennis is a liar. Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to H(P,P) is *halting* as follows:
>>>>>>>>>> Liar !
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This just shows everyone reading not only that you're wrong, but that you know it.
>>>>>>>> If an X is a Y and you deny it then you are a liar.
>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non-halting and you know it.
>>>>>>>> Is it fun being a liar?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're really struggling with this aren't you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not struggling with the fact that you are having fun being a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike everyone else I have a direct measure of your competence, so you
>>>>>> can't fool me about what you don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you should have no problem explaining EXACTLY why this is wrong:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulated input does reach a final state when simulated by Hb.
>>>>>
>>>>> _P()
>>>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>>>> //The above returns false
>>>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>>>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>>>>
>>>>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders and are given the same input so
>>>>> both are answering the exact same question but get different results,
>>>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
>>>> we know it is non-halting.
>>>
>>> You just keep repeating with no explanation that H(P,P)==false is correct. I explain it detail why it's not.
>>>
>>> Hb demonstrates that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) i.e. (P,P) DOES halt. So find an error:
>>>
>>> _P()
>>> [00000956](01) 55 push ebp
>>> [00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
>>> [0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
>>> [00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
>>> //The above returns false
>>> [00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
>>> [00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
>>> [0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
>>> [0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
>>> [0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
>>> [00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
>>> // Hb reaches the final state of its input
>>>
>> ONE OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS MUST BE INCORRECT* BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS
>> LOGICAL NECESSITY (*It doesn't freaking matter which one).
>>> Hb and H are both simulating halt deciders
>>> and are given the same input so both are
>>> answering the exact same question but get
>>> different results, so one must be wrong. correct.
>> As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
>> we know it is non-halting.
>
> Obviously, *if* the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then we know it is non-halting. The problem is the correctly simulated input DOES halt.
>
> H makes an abort decision and leaves UTM mode to abort. Hb *never* leaves UTM mode and simulates the input to a final state.
>
> Therefore Hb(P,P)==true is correct, proving that H(P,P)==false is incorrect.

As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then
we know it is non-halting.

Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.
Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

SubjectRepliesAuthor
o Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key

By: olcott on Sun, 3 Apr 2022

54olcott
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor