Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  nodelist  faq  login

[It is] best to confuse only one issue at a time. -- K&R


computers / comp.theory / latest

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 20 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that Ha3(N,5) and Ha7(N,5) are also not identical because they have different traces (i.e. Ha3 aborts when its abort criteria

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 28 Minutes ago by: olcott

They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 31 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts, but Hb keeps going to a final state. So Hb proves that Ha aborted to soon and that Ha is therefore wrong. This is no different from how Ha7(N,5)==1 proves that Ha3(N,5)==0 is wrong beaus

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 35 Minutes ago by: olcott

How dishonest can you get? It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6 Because they have entirely different execution traces they are not the freaking same damn computation Jackass.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 38 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

Which says you know NOTHING of Computation Theory because you don't understand what equivalent functions are. The "Name" of H is actually unimportant (which is why P needs its own copy of H, as it can't just refer to some "global" name

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 39 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa. FALSE, as explained above. I know that you have *claimed* this, but you've never backed it up. So your claim has no merit and Hb

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 48 Minutes ago by: olcott

P does not call anything besides H therefore Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not the same and because you have always known this you are still a liar, yet this time we add damned, so you are a damned liar. _P() [00001352](01) 55

Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 52 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

And, does your FIXED H match the code of Ha or not? If it is definied to abort it will. If it does, what is your problem with calling it Ha? The key to Hb, is that it is based on the same basic algorithm has your H, but defined ups th

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 56 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input. By the definition of the halting problem, Ha(Pa,Pa) must answer the question of w

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 56 Minutes ago by: olcott

It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot be brown. Ha(Pa,Pa) Hb(Pa,Pa) Simulate(Pa,Pa) are computationally distinct at the x86 machi

Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 4 Minutes ago by: olcott

It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot be brown. Ha(Pa,Pa) Hb(Pa,Pa) Simulate(Pa,Pa) are computationally distinct at the x86 machi

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 6 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

Does the fixed algorithm of H abort? If so, then we are in fact talking about Ha(Pa,Pa). This is your only warning: explain why the below is wrong or implicitly admit it is correct: Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite n

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 11 Minutes ago by: olcott

It is off topic, I am only talking about H(P,P)

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 13 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy. So exp

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 18 Minutes ago by: olcott

No we will not.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 27 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa. So that way when you say "if H simulated an infinite number of steps" we can differentiate that H (i.e. Hn) from the original H (i.e. Ha). Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infi

Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 33 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, that isn't the way it works. And the P you list is NOT a suitable P to define the PROGRAM/Compuation P with, as it is NOT complete. It is a Program Fragment, which does NOT make a computation. This means your whole argument is p

Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Hour 36 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

What do you define as a CORRECT simulation? What was wrong with what I said as a Correct Simulation (or what you published) YOU DID publish such a trace (see below) On 4/27/21 12:55 AM, olcott wrote: Message-ID: <Teudndbu59GVBBr9nZ2d

Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 39 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

"Obvious" isn't "Proof", especially when based on incorrect assumptions. YOU seem to have a blind spot for truth, and ignore anything that doesn't match your incorrect ideas, this just makes you locked into your gaslighten ignorance.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Hour 44 Minutes ago by: olcott

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 46 Minutes ago by: olcott

I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic. I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H and another immutable machine language literal string named P.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Hour 46 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

No, YOU violate it by making a call instruction not be traced to the location it is called. What error have I made about the x86 language, be specific YOU will be guilty of lying. You idle use of those words is just ad-hominem attacks

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 56 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

And by H(P,P) you mean the H that has a fixed algorithm to abort and the P that calls it? Then you are in fact talking about Ha(Pa,Pa). Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halt

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 56 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn, which is one of the P's you talk about must be. Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rul

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 57 Minutes ago by: olcott

Until you prove that you will stay focused on H(P,P) I am going to ignore your lying ass.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 59 Minutes ago by: olcott

My whole point is that it is very obvious that it does correctly detect infinite behavior without infinite simulation as Jackass implied. You strive very diligently to make sure to always miss the point even when this point is reemphas

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Hour 59 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

Pa(Pa) doesn't have infinite simulation. Pn(Pn) does, and Ha can detect that, but that doesn't matter as Pa(Pa) doesn't have that pattern. Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which ha

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 2 Minutes ago by: olcott

It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 3 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

Yes, it can detect SOME infinite loops, but you haven't proved it can detect ALL infinite loops, or in particular, the infinite pattern you claim is in P (that isn't actually infinite if it is detected by H). This is a classical fallic

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Hours 4 Minutes ago by: olcott

It is a God damned lie and you know it. That is the only thing that is wrong with it. You know that you are not following the definition of the x86 langugae. Why lie does that give you A thrill? Hopefully you will not be incinerated

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 7 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different, so YES it is irrelevant. And Pa(Pa) doesn't have infinite simulation. Pn(Pn) does, and Ha can detect that, but that doesn't matter as Pa(Pa) doesn't have that pattern

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 12 Minutes ago by: olcott

It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Hours 15 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating? (Note, PROGRAM) YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the definitions of

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 21 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P. Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 28 Minutes ago by: olcott

No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an infinite loop. _Infinite_Loop() [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5 [00001

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 31 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct? Because that's exactly what you're saying when you say "if it did simulate an infinite number of steps" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does not simulate Pa for an infinite

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Hours 35 Minutes ago by: olcott

That is a despicable lie and you know it. You are an atheist right? No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations 21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 39 Minutes ago by: olcott

_Infinite_Loop() [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5 [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp [000012c8](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 39 Minutes ago by: Mike Terry

But he might be sharing them 25:25 with PO. :)

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 48 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

50 Internet points for Jeff Barnett!

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Hours 52 Minutes ago by: Dennis Bush

But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps. So what you're actually saying is that because the fixed algorithm of H (which from here on we'll

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Hours 55 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

Wrong. I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it reaching the final state, as have YOU. All you have shown with your recent arguements is that H's incomplete, and thus incorrect, simulation doesn't get to t

A comment regarding politics and my psychological health.

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Hours 8 Minutes ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I've said in the past that I might not want to go into politics. That is definitely true of how I feel right now, but I note that I recently realized that although I stand by everything I've said from a factual basis, my med

Announcement regarding non-fiction book projects.

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Hours 12 Minutes ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I've recently begun work on starting four non-fiction book projects that are interesting to me. The four subjects are not being revealed at this time, but I am in process, as of this evening and likely continuing tomorrow, o

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Hours 46 Minutes ago by: olcott

The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach the last instruction of t

Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Hours 3 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering? Remember the DEFINITION of a Halt Decider. You try to use double talk to say otherwise, but the basic def

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Hours 11 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

A computation CAN'T be 'aborted'. The execution of an instance of it might be, but the computation itself, which is a mathematical concept, can't be, and ALWAYS runs to completion. Your comment just proves you don't understand what a c

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Hours 30 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

And the fact that H stopped running P doesn't mean that it is Non-Halting.

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Hours 31 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

Right, and nothing you have done shows that the TURING MACHINE didn't halt when the Turing Machine that represent your decider said it wouldnt't All you have done with all your arguments is prove that you just don't understand what tha

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Hours 36 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

No, you confuse the concept of a CORRECT simulation with what H deos. H generates an ABORTED simulation. An ABORTED SIMULATION are NEVER correct, because the machine they are simulating continue to run after that point. You just don't

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Hours 31 Minutes ago by: olcott

The term "halt" in computer science is a term of the art that overrides and supersedes its common meaning as many terms of the art do. A TM that halts does not merely stop running it comes to a normal termination in a final state havin

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Hours 58 Minutes ago by: B.H.

0 Don't interfere with my C++ programming!

Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Hours 31 Minutes ago by: olcott

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself. Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual validation. Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. This means that everyone th

Question for Olcott

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Hours 44 Minutes ago by: Mr Flibble

All things being equal which is more likely: (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct ? /Flibble

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 8 Hours 45 Minutes ago by: olcott

_P() [00001352](01) 55 push ebp [00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[eb

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 8 Hours 57 Minutes ago by: Jeff Barnett

Insightful observation. I have been curious, since he is now a pathological liar, whether he lies about cancer too. I wouldn't be surprised. As to cognitive disorders, I believe he his learning disabilities compounded by the attention s

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Hours 40 Minutes ago by: B.H.

One key problem, for, e.g., Zuckerberg and Pelosi, is, they *cannot* discuss "software publication" ideas related to this project with people who haven't seen my posts. They might try to start a "large group of people that they talk to o

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Hours 49 Minutes ago by: B.H.

If you can claim credit for aiding honesty, and opposing dishonesty, on the internet, I would bet eventually someone will write software crediting and rewarding you, perhaps financially, for having done so, sometime in the fairly near fu

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Hours 58 Minutes ago by: B.H.

0 Don't mess up my 't' key; I am having to copy and paste the 't' character, go bother someone else!

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Hours 58 Minutes ago by: B.H.

I've spent a little time trying to calculate when I'll be released based on these ideas. Here are a few comments: - Right now, the definition of "rational behavior" for those who have read my posts, definitely includes: Don't lie abo

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 12 Hours 49 Minutes ago by: olcott

I know that you are ignorant about this, yet at least you are not a liar. The definition of halting does mean reaches final state, this is a term of the art of computer science thus overrides and supersedes its common meaning.

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 12 Hours 53 Minutes ago by: Python

*facepalm*

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Hours 58 Minutes ago by: olcott

Since I proved that this is correct on the basis of the Linz definition and you know that it is correct on this basis that makes you a despicable liar. What is your motive for being a despicable liar? YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS TRUE A compu

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 13 Hours 3 Minutes ago by: olcott

Halting DOES NOT MEAN STOPS RUNNING, Halting means reaches its final state.

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point ? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Hours 10 Minutes ago by: Ben

This is not a unique case. He really thinks in this way. For example "The fact the a computation stops running does not prove that it halts." "the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a halting computation

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 13 Hours 38 Minutes ago by: Python

This is not even remotely related to your absurd claims, come on Peter!

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 14 Hours 3 Minutes ago by: olcott

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P ....[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec mov ebp,esp ....[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 14 Hours 7 Minutes ago by: olcott

computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234) Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 15 Hours 14 Minutes ago by: Richard Damon

As near as I can figure it, Peter thinks that because H stops simulating its P input, that P never halts, because that copy never gets to the final state that a fully run P will get to. Yes, he confuses all sorts of things, forcing dis

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 15 Hours 41 Minutes ago by: Python

This is quite a serious cognitive dissonance to be able to write down such a sentence and believe it. Cancer is not the worse illness you have, Peter.

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Right, but the simplified version you are quoting isn't quite rigerous, there are actual requirements on the program H to be used in that manner. Note, with Turing Machines, we don't need additional quaifications, as all actual Turing

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

H can not emulate the input P to the final state, yes. But that isn't the definition of Halting. Halting is defined by the ACTUAL MACHINE P reaching the final state, or a CORRECT (unaborted) simulation reaching the final state. P DOES

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 2 Hours ago by: olcott

THIS IS THE GENERIC PATTERN. For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 2 Hours ago by: olcott

So in other words you simply are not bright enough to understand that the emulated P can't possibly ever reach its own last instruction. I honestly can't believe that you are that stupid.

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Note, the DEFINITON of Linz says that P has ITS OWN COPY of the input, and that it makes ANOTHER copy of that input, none of which your program does, so you first need to actually PROVE it is equivalent. Second, it appears from that wa

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You proved that the INCOMPLETE simulation of the input by H doesn't reach a final state. NOT that the CORRECT simulation of the input by a CORRECT simulator doesn't. You just are proving that you don't know the meaning of CORRECT. (or

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 3 Hours ago by: olcott

The fact that I just proved that the simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its own final state conclusively proves that it is non-halting regardless of whether or not it stops running.

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 3 Hours ago by: olcott

I had to create the whole x86utm operating system before a C function would be able to invoke an x86 emulator on another C function and step though its emulation one instruction at a time. The tricky part of this is when the C function

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, because the whole second trace is conditioned on the halt deciding of H. So, if the top level H aborts at that point, then the trace become incorrect by being incomplete (it doesn't show the FULL Halting behavior of the input, whic

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 4 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

That suggests that something is wrong. An interpreted language. which is what an emulator is, should be able to interpret anything written in valid grammar for that language. An intepreter for the language itself shouldn't be a special ca

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 4 Hours ago by: olcott

So the first invocation of H(P,P) derives this trace Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P ....[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Since it ISN"T correct, that is meaningless. ERROR HERE. The code below in not executed as part of the same process as the code above. You admit your claim is baseless? You can't call my claim baseless, as I fully explain my reasonin

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ closure on one point (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 4 Hours ago by: olcott

It is the only way that you can verify that this trace is correct: Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Yes, to H, not P. Unless H actually calls P, and thus loses control and the ability to abort, the instructions in P below are never actually seen by the simulation thread that is simulating the lines above. Nope, you are just so dumb

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Then why do we need to "reverse-engineer" the trace? Which it seems you failed at. Maybe that is why ot took so long. It is hard to make automaticaly believable lies. No, you present the trace and people can verify it. Note, it has

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: olcott

It is not a transition it is a function call. I am sure that you are pretending to be much more stupid than you are. No one is stupid enough to disagree with a programming language.

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But it is a fundamental Which it isn't, and has been pointed out many times, but you seem to be to stupid to understand, or to dishonest to accept. Truth is not limited to just a single point at a time. That is the way of the carefu

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Not at all. This program took me a whole man-year. The most difficult part was to make the nested simulations work correctly. No but everyone else does to confirm its correctness because THEY DON'T HAVE IT. So then you now agree that

Re: A concern about MIT professor Michael Sipser. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

I meant to say "because you're unpopular with...," I typed that wrong.

Re: A concern about MIT professor Michael Sipser. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

A simple narrative to illustrate my point: Nurse Michael Sipser dispenses medications at an elementary school. I am a second-grade student with diabetes. When I go to my insulin shot at Nurse Sipser's office one day, however, I am not

Re: Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Interesting point, that you eed to talk about "reverse-engineering" this output implies that you don't actually have a program to generate it. You don't need to "reverse-engineer" something you have. No, that is NOT what I said, and

Re: Smoke (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The only time H correctly emulates P is when it never aborts, and then it fails to be a Halt Decider. So, Ok, you have made a point, won a little skirmish, but need to admit you lost the battle. If H returns H(P,P) as 0, then P(P) Hal

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Right, and then the top level H aborts, so we don't get to see the rest of the correct simulaiton, which would show this embedded copy of H simulating the next embedded copy of H for its emulation of those sam e 7 instructions and then

Are my reviewers incompetent or dishonest? [ stupid or liar ? ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 6 Hours ago by: olcott

Software engineering experts can reverse-engineer what the correct x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation thus confirming that the provided execution trace is correct. They can do this

Re: Smoke (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 7 Hours ago by: olcott

It is the case that the C function H does correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly emulated by H. If you deny this fact (or refuse to acknowledge the truth of it) you are st

Re: Smoke (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 7 Hours ago by: Ben

Quoting: From: "Peter Olcott" <olc...@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation Statement of what I have achieved I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the [above]

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 8 Hours ago by: olcott

Yes that is true, none-the-less we don't need to actually see the 237 pages of the emulation of H to know that this H must also emulate the first 7 instructions of P.

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: olcott

It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly emulated by H. That you would disagree with verified facts makes you eith

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, you are doing an analysis based on the assumption that an H CAN correct simulate its input AND answer at the same time? Until your prove that such an H can exist, you need to be very careful what you derive from this analysis. Bu

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

But they don't though: it is YOU who is introducing the idea of an erroneous infinitely nested simulation. /Flibble

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: olcott

So you simply guess that you must be correct and totally ignore my proof that you are not. My paper shows how every conventional HP proof is refuted on the basis that the input to H(P,P) (and its TM equivalents) specifies infinitely ne

Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ? (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

The proofs you are attempting to refute doe not have any infinite recursion thus you continue to bark up the wrong tree. /Flibble

Re: A concern about MIT professor Michael Sipser. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ?

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: olcott

That H(P,P)==0 is easily verified as correct by reverse engineering what the behavior of the input to H(P,P) would be if we assume that H performs a pure x86 emulation of its input. The x86 source-code of P specifies everything that we n

Re: Smoke [ easily verifiable fact ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it doesn't. First, P does not contain its own copy of H, as required to be a complete program. Second, H is not "proper" decider, as it is incapable of handling as an input any arbitrary program. The input you claim to give to H

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, try do so with an H that meets your requirments to give an answer. That would be you. P(P) is verified to Halt if H(P,P) returns 0 in finite time. THus H(P,P) == 0 is WRONG for the Halting Problem. A bunch of garbage based on

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Really, you have published a trace of the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) [that is a trace of P(P)] that shows it halting. Yes, you can show that if your H never aborts its simulation of P(P), then that P(P) is non-halting.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Don't just "Claim" it, so an ACTUAL verification, or you just show yourself to be a liar. You haven't verified ANY fact, you have made claims using FAKE data that don't even really support your claim. Which just repeats your CLAIMS,

Re: Smoke [ easily verifiable fact ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: olcott

Because my C/x86 does correctly model the Linz proof, it equally applies to the Linz proof. See my paper for the details of this.

Re: Smoke [ easily verifiable fact ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

What is the point of having an infinitely nested simulation when the proofs you are trying to refute are not infinitely nested nor have any infinite recursion? /Flibble

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: olcott

It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly emulated by H. Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: olcott

It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly emulated by H. Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on t

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The only machine that you have shown that does a correct simulation is the version that never aborts. That version fails to answer the question, so fails to be a halt decider. Any version of H that aborts, and returns a not-halting ans

Re: Smoke [ easily verifiable fact ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 10 Hours ago by: olcott

It is an easily verifiable fact that the C function H does correctly determine that the C function named P would never reach its last instruction when correctly emulated by H. Everyone disagreeing with verified facts is incorrect on t

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But only if H never returns an answer. Since you stipulated that H(P,P) returns the value of 0 (you can't stipulate that this answer is correct), then we KNOW that P(P) will halt, because H INCORRECTLY aborts its simulation of P,P and

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: olcott

I don't have to make claims about how it works. I only need these two claims: (1) The correctly simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction thus never halts. VERIFIED FACT (2) Therefore when H(P,P) returns 0 it is corr

Smoke

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

All Olcott has at this point is smoke and mirrors but I am wondering if that is all he ever had? /Flibble

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: olcott

It is a verified fact that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final instruction thus conclusively proving that it never halts.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But you are making claims about how it works, if you don't know how it works how can you make that claim? I guess that just shows that you will speak authoritatively on things that you don't know anything abuot. That just shows you ar

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Ok, then why does the H(P,P) that P calls get stuck in an infinite recursion wneh the top level doesn't? Or is it that it doesn't, but H looks at the trace wrong and THINK that it will, so it aborts it? Note also, the question isn't d

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 12 Hours ago by: olcott

If you are too stupid to understand that H(P,P) derives the same execution trace of its input every time it is called you are far too stupid to evaluate my work.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 12 Hours ago by: olcott

I don't need to know this. I only need to know that all of the execution traces of all of the inputs are somewhere on the master UTM tape. I am never going to write a hundred million page long UTM that does the same thing as my C funct

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 12 Hours ago by: olcott

I really seems to be an accurate assessment to me. If you do the very best that you can to make sure to acknowledge that facts are true or provide the details that you fail to understand of my proof of key facts I will change my assessm

A concern about MIT professor Michael Sipser.

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 13 Hours ago by: B.H.

In the past, I was quite impressed with Dr. Sipser, and although I had never met him, I was pleased with his reactions to my emails. (Yes, it's possible that this post, which constitutes a statement of opinion and not fact, will be used b

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 15 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

There's only one physical tape. But you haven't written a UTM yet. You don't know how the tape of a UTM running another UTM is laid out.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, because the second level emulation is NOT emulated by the top level emulator, its emulator is. Unless you are lying about what H does, you are just lying that the second level code is emulated by the same emulation process that the

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 17 Hours ago by: Ben

If you respond to thread calling me a liar, could I ask you to consider changing the subject line? (All the additions -- "HEAD GAMES", "smart honest people would agree" and "Ben is a Liar" are insults intended to goad people into continu

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 22 Hours ago by: olcott

There is a valid trace of every line of code that is emulated. Operating system code has its trace tuned off. This only leaves the user code such as P() and main(). Then we see the 14 lines execution trace of the two level simulation o

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So the only actual valid trace is what that outer simulator actual simulated. Since it is simulating a call to H, that means it needs to simulate the code IN H, not the code that this H is simulating. DEFINITIONS. (Which you seem to h

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

WHY? Isn't that the DEFINITION of a correct simulation. The only possible answer is that your H isn't actually a Halt Decider and thus the input P,P doesn't actually represent P(P). If this is because you claim it can't be given a repr

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 23 Hours ago by: olcott

The only actual executable is the outer UTM everything else is a part of the same nested process.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 1 Day 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Yes, the DATA is there, ENCODED on the tape, but it isn't part of the trace generated by that UTM. Try it. Write a UTM that takes as input the representation of a machine and its tape, and generates at the end a representation of the

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 1 Day 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But you don't put difffernt levels of execution in a single trace. THAT is the fact that I have pointed out and you refuse to comment on. That make YOU statement illogical. You confuse simulation with direct execution. Yes, and UNCOND

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days ago by: olcott

And this trace is written to the outer UTM's tape as a part of its own data.

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days ago by: olcott

Every H(P,P) that is invoked or simulated must do the same thing. The simulated input to H(P,P) does not do the same thing as the directly executed P(P). This is an easily verifiable fact. It gets me very angry when people disagree with

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Yes, and a trace made by that outer UTM will show the states that the second UTM is going through, but NOT the states that second UTM simulates in its own processing. That second UTM might produce its OWN trace of the states that it h

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days ago by: olcott

That the next level execution trace of the input to H(P,P) must be identical to the first level trace.

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5) (update) (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Nope. H(P,P) always does the same thing, right? if not, H fails to be an actual computation. Since you say the outer H(P,P) returns 0, then it MUST be true that the H that P calls also returns 0, as we KNOW from your stipulation what

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days ago by: Richard Damon

You seem tobe a good example of that. So, what actual FACT do you think I am missing? I have stated specific rules that your 'claims' fail to follow. All you have done is hurled insults. Who doesn't actually know what they are talkin

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days ago by: olcott

When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that simulates a TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape and the only actual executable is the first UTM.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days ago by: olcott

When a UTM simulates a TM description that calls a UTM that simulates a TM description all of this is simply data on the first UTM's tape.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days ago by: Richard Damon

The problem is that your second trace is NOT a piece of the first. The fact you don't understand that says you just don't know how computers or programs actually work. Yes, ON YOUR PART. It is stupid to suggest that it is correct to m

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

No that is not what is being analyzed. H(P,P) simulates its input that calls H(P,P) that simulates its input. P(P) calls H(P,P) that simulates its input has a provably entirely different execution trace.

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

I coined the term "ignorance squared" decades ago to account for the fact that people cannot possibly be directly aware of their own ignorance. To be directly aware of their own ignorance requires them to contrast their ignorance with t

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

Right, P(P) calls H(P,P) which is defined to simulate this input and decide that its input is non-halting, and abort its simulation and return a 0 so P(P) halts. THAT is the behavior that the x86 source-code specifies when we add your

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

So an execution trace of the input to H(P,P) is easy to show when H simulates its input, yet another execution trace of the input to H(P,P) that was invoked by P is "like a square circle" can't possibly exist? Everyone here (including

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

Just shows you are lying. I think you are afraid that people DO have the technical skills to evaluate your work and if you show what you have done you will be utterly humiliated. You have taken EXTREAMLY long times to do anything prog

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

No, I am saying that you are asking for the equivalent of a of a square circle. NO corrext execution trace mixes the trace of different execution units, as the two levels of simulation are. YOU are showing your technical incompetence.

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

The code does exactly what its x86 source-code specifies.

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

That they don't understand that they don't need to see this conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical skills to evaluate my work.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

In other words you acknowledge that you are technically incompetent to provide the execution trace of one simulation and one nested simulation of the input to H(P,P). _P() [00001352](01) 55 push ebp [00001353](02) 8bec

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5) (update) (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope. Can't be and meet the definition of Correct Simulation, at least in the context of a Halting Decider. What is YOUR definition of a Correct Simulation, if it doesn't need to match that actual behavior of that which is simulated?

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, people wouldn't be confused, No, you are just proving that you don't know what a proof is. You post LIES of traces, that people are calling you out on. Only of YOU. Someone who claims that no one can understand there work in the

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You don't understand anything do you. P does call H(P,P), and so an execution trace of P needs to show the instructions IN H, that are being executed as it performs its simulation and halt decision of the input. H does NOT call P, not

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

A nonsense trace, as it is mixing the execution path of two independent execution units. Nope. Then H isn't a Halting Decider. FAIL. Incomplete program. Might core dump at the call 000011a2 command, because no code has been loade

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

The correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) and the direct execution of P(P) are not computationally equivalent thus need not have the same halting behavior.

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure in 50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace then showing them much more than this

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You don't have the technical competenct to write a correct paper, or the ability to correctly recognize infinite recursion at the x86 assembly level, since you have shown that P(P) Halts, and thus CAN'T have infinite recursion, because

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

ERROR IN TRACE. THE FOLLOWING DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN, AND IS A LIE> No, H is just imagining this, because it is using incorrect logic and comes up with a wrong answer. You are just showing YOUR technical incompitence in making your

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

So when P calls H(P,P) you are saying that P is not calling H(P,P) ?

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of emulationg the input, like I mentioned. If H is actually emulating the code, then the "instructions" of the second level are never actually executed, are they? Maybe YOU

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

When the C function named H emulates the machine code strings of P passed to it as parameters P proves to match the infinite recursion behavior pattern because it specifies infinitely nested emulation. One after the other? (1) Funct

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, that isn't what is impossible, what is impossible is to correctly represent that by a trace of the second level of code, since that isn't what actually happens. If you beleive it is ok to just LIE in your proof, than just admit tha

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting problem proofs (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But it isn't the execution trace of the first level. As I have said, you could perhaps make the second level be somewhat abstract and say: Simulation of:

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5) (update) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: Keith Thompson

[...] I suspect you meant something other than what you wrote. This C program satisifies your criterion for infinite recursion. It clear is not recursive, infinitely or otherwise (I presume you'll agree with that). I wonder if you have

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

There is infinitely nested simulation in the Linz proof but you will not be able to begin to understand that until we go through many steps of my other proof first.

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 3 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Given that there is no infinite recursion in the proof you are trying to refute then what is the point in going through your proof given it is based on a false premise? /Flibble

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

If you keep changing the subject we will never get any closure on any point. To actually understand my proof we must move point by point one-at-at-time achieving mutual agreement on each point before moving on to the next point. The C

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

But that doesn't happen in the proofs you are attempting to refute as THERE IS NO INFINITE RECURSION PRESENT IN THOSE PROOFS. /Flibble

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

If you can recognize infinite recursion then you know that when one function calls another function with the same parameters from the same machine address twice in sequence that this specifies infinite recursion.

dr. jason kudurogianis

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 I now am healthy enough to see that is serious. My source, which my doctor himself mysteriously alluded with a pleasant "Ursula K. LeGuin" gesture, is not being revealed. I deserve actually good psychiatric care. I read the way my ps

poster posting as "senor dingus"

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 You do not have permission to talk to me.

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

We have been over this. I am quite capable of recognizing infinite recursion but, crucially, I can also recognize a *lack* of infinite recursion: it is a shame that you are not capable of doing the same. /Flibble

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Clearly you do not have the technical competence to evaluate my paper: To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in: the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C translates into x86

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

There is no infinitely repeating pattern except the one you are making up in your head based on your misunderstanding of the halting problem theorem proof. How many times do you have to be told this? You've got nothing. /Flibble

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 5 Hours ago by: Mutt Buncher

Post it 156,334 more times you retarded mouthload of Bolivian goat testicles.

Re: Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5) This is an explanation of a key new insight into the halting problem provided in the language of software engineering. Technical computer science terms are explained us

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

When we correctly reverse-engineer what the execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation we can see that the correctly emulated input to H(P,P) would never reach its final state at machine

Re: cia (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Shut up idiot.

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86 emulation of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86 emulation is) there is no reason to see that the code derives a pure x86 emulation of its input. What a pure x86 emula

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

The first level drives the second level, thus the second level is an aspect of the first level.

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting problem proofs (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You obviously have an reading problem. I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to be traced. To say otherwise just proves you are s stupid liar, How else can you show an emulation of an emulator unless you have the

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

Saying the an x86 emulation of x86 machine code it impossible is ridiculously stupid thing to say (and you know it).

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And you are to stupid to understand that this is asking for a square circle. One execution trace should NEVER show two different levels of execution behavior,

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, you admit the system doesn't acctually exist? Which is like asking for a square circle. It is a conflict of definitions, if what I describe is not what you mean (and you mean what you provide). You trace is just a LIE, because it

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, the fact that you ask for something that can't properly exist shows you are an idiot. A proper execution trace of a correct x86 emulation will show the stream of instructions that the x86 processor will execute. for the "nested"

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the first emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too stupid to understand this?

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting problem proofs (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, give me a copy of H to trace, since THAT is what should be trace and actually should be part of the input "byte" stream, but since it is just a pointer, you can't really tell how long the input is. The other option is right after t

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

So then you are too stupid to provide the correct execution trace of the x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) and one nested emulation?

Re: cia (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

If you got Harvard and MIT on your side with this, as you seem to have gotten Princeton, then America is truly without serious academia. Was your mission in the war on terror to shut down US academia? -Philip

Re: cia (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

If you idiots are acting like you have some little physics system to counter-act economics, you are very delusional. I explained the theorem to you; you don't have "bot superiority" no matter how many Facebook-CEO-pawns are on your side.

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Hah! You messed up my yogurt in the refrigerator, causing a spill and ruining my food. You really are incredibly dense, aren't you? Pathetically self-destructive, hilarious enough; you even see the result and still work to mind-manip

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

Then don't dishonestly change the freaking name nitwit !!!

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

It is NOT a different computation. Both Ha and Hb and halt deciders and both have the same input, so both are deciding on the same computation. Therefore a trace of the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as a trace of the input to Hb(Pa,P

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

Dishonest lying bastards change the subject from the execution trace of the input to H(P,P) by substituting and entirely different computation as a dishonest lying bastard strawman error.

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

I gave you that, and *then* gave you the correct simulation of the remaining instructions which shows halting. Since you dishonestly clipped that part as it proved you wrong I'll put it back: If we trace Hb(Pa,Pa) alongside Ha(Pa,Pa), w

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

If you weren't lying you would be able to show what the execution trace should be and thus point out my error. That people provide only rhetoric when I ask for specific logic proves that they are dishonest.

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: Python

Says the guy who forged execution traces. The lying baster is YOU Peter, you are a despicable piece of dirt that will burn in Hell for ever.

Comments about Putin and Ukraine

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-losing-grip-power-top-130532036.html Great, if Putin is out and the killing stops, great. I don't know that I believe news about the coup, but I would be extremely worried about a detonation in Ukraine.

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 You just messed up my 'd' key. Cut it out, idiots.

Commentary Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/israeli-official-challenges-aoc-claims-183111104.html Wait, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez cares about an American citizen that she can't have sex with?? That doesn't sound right, she's Ms. Fake-Left-Wing Trafficking

Biden, Ukraine, and rape.

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nude-protester-stop-raping-us-192550884.html Yeah, it's true, Biden is a big rape-strategy fan, and a lot of women in Ukraine got brutally raped by Russian soldiers. Fancy that, Biden allowing women to

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

When I ask to provide the execution trace of one correct x86 emulation and and one nested x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) dishonest lying bastards keep trying to change the subject because they know that what I ask for proves that

Cyber-security news.

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fears-grow-smaller-nations-ransomware-143049634.html Is there really no innovative solution to this kind of challenge? You would think that after all these years, someone would have a very good engineering

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

This is false. The emulator always outputs the complete execution trace of all user code and does not trace nay operating system code. Also the emulator does not create any instructions it merely outputs the execution trace of the x86

Since I like news implying the possibility of Nancy Pelosi's

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/article261652522.html

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

But its algorithm *will* abort which is what matters. In other words, only up to the point where Ha would abort, i.e. not long enough to see Pa(Pa) halt. If we trace Hb(Pa,Pa) alongside Ha(Pa,Pa), we see that each trace is the same up

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

This is the crucial remaining question, assuming that everything else is set up as claimed. The first seven instructions of the trace are the trace created by the emulator. It then stops tracing when the code it is emulating calls H. Howev

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

H does not have a fixed algorithm to abort at any point prior to the first nested simulation, thus you are still required to show what the correct emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be for one emulation and one nested emulation. An

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Invalid, since H (i.e. Ha) has a fixed algorithm to abort. What you're actually asking for is to see the trace of Pn(Pn), where Pn calls Hn, and Hn does an unconditional simulation. Pn(Pn) has nothing to do with Pa(Pa) or Ha(Pa,Pa).

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace of the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its input. You must show this for one simulation and one nested simulation. Failure to do this will be construed as a dire

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Maybe a bad assumption! WHY? That isn't the trace of *A* execution. This is mixing two different traces, which is a logical error. Like I said, unless you give me the code for H, how can I show how it emulates its input. You are jus

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input. You are required to show the execution trace of the input to H(P,P) under that assumption for one emulation and one nested emulation. The one that you provided for the emulation

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that, since that is PART of P. It would begin as: machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ========

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to provide the execution trace that a pure single level nested emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any failure to provide this basis for your damned lies will be considered direct a

Re: H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT. No execution path from P actually CALLS another copy of P, as your trace implies. Remember, an execution trace is supposed to show the sequence of instructions that a CPU would actually execu

H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct thus refuting the halting problem

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 2 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input exactly matches the behavior of the correctly reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be. To reverse-engineer this e

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 17 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And given what you have defined P to be, it can't be, because the P you have entered isn't actually a computation, since it isn't a complete algorithm. There is NOTHING in your P that defines what happens after the call "H" instructio

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

No we won't. With your ADD we have to stay sharply focused on a single point. We are ONLY evaluating whether or not the simulation of the input to H(P,P) is correct. I have been telling you this for many messages now and you keep drift

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Alright, so since the fixed algorithm of H aborts, we'll call it Ha, and we'll refer to P as Pa to make it clear which H is being called. This also means that the P you're referring to includes the code of Ha and everything it calls, and

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

Heh that is great. Yeah !!! I gave you feedback and we came to mutual agreement. OK then call it a halt determiner. None-the-less H(P,P)==0 is correct in such an obvious way that if you were unbiased you would have agreed long ago.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And you obviously don't know the meaning of a "Program". All you have there is a fragment. Halting is defined for PROGRAMS, not fragments. But, since it isn't in the input, that hasn't been defined. If you mean what your halt decider

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Perhaps that was worded incorrectly. The *algorithm* of a computation is fixed, which in turn means its behavior is fixed for a given input. Which is not a complete program. So if H's domain is not complete programs, then by definitio

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

It has a different behavior for every input, nitwit. How stupid can you get? The domain of H is this finite string: 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3 Do you have attention deficit disorder that scrambles your atte

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 2 Days 23 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

You have it backwards. It is ridiculously stupid to say that *any* computation, *including* a halt decider, does NOT have a fixed behavior. That's how a given input always gives the same output. And for the halting function, its domai

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: Richard Damon

You think that there can be different answer to a specific machine/input combination halting? But you aren't actually talking about a CORRECT simulation of the input, since you are claiming that your simulation shows a different beh

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: olcott

It is ridiculously stupid to say that a halt decider has a fixed behavior. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function In any case I am only talking ab

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: Richard Damon

ERROR RIGHT HERE. CALL INSTRUCTION MALFUNCTIONED. The following code is NOT actually executed, so we need to actually be tracing the at of simulation, not the code being simulated. If you disagree, provide a source that says you can

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: Dennis Bush

It must be, otherwise you have nothing to decide on. Remember, P is a *complete* program, which means the H is called must be fully defined and fixed. Otherwise what you're saying is: Since H1(P1,P1)==0, and H2(P2,P2)==0, and H3(P3,P3)

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Which needs to include the code for H or it DOESN'T actually specify behavior. Since that code aborts its "simulation" of its input, P halts. FAIL.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: Richard Damon

And a CALL instruction doesn't go to some other address and a major change in stack. Prove you are a LIAR. FAIL.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: Richard Damon

No, you haven't.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Like the CALL Instruction?

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days ago by: olcott

This is not true and we are not yet discussing that aspect of it yet. We are only validating this this execution trace is correct. Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][00212342]

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 1 Hour ago by: Dennis Bush

And since the fixed H is programmed to abort (which from now on we'll refer to as Ha to make that clear, and P we'll call Pa to make it clear that it's calling Ha), when Hb(Pa,Pa) simulates this same input to a final state and returns 1 i

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

H is at machine address 00000826 every other variation is a dishonest dodge away from the actual question.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 1 Hour ago by: Dennis Bush

Which is doesn't as demonstrated by Hb(P,P) reaching a final state and returning 1. the pair of literal strings of the machine code of P we can You left out the fixed code of H which simulates P and will eventually abort which Hb(P,P)

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

OK then when the literal string of the machine code of H correctly emulates the pair of literal strings of the machine code of P we can verify that this execution trace is correct: Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 1 Hour ago by: Dennis Bush

But H(P,P) does *not* perform a correct of its input. A correct simulation of this input is done Hb(P,P) which does in fact reach a final state. Therefore H(P,P)==0 is wrong. This of course is all academic because H is not computing th

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

When we stipulate that the input to H(P,P) only halts when its correct simulation reaches its machine address of [000009f0] otherwise it is non-halting then H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status of the input to H(P,P). _P() [000009d6](

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 2 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

If you're referring to *just* the function P, it doesn't have a halt status because it's not a complete program. The machine language of P, as a *complete program*, includes the fixed machine language of H since P calls H, plus everythin

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

So you agree that H(P,P)==0 is correct when H computes the halt status of the machine language of P that is passed to H on the stack as a pair of pointers to the literal string of P?

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 3 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Only for something that is not the halting problem. It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters is that it computes the halting function. If it always gives the same result for the same input, it *is* a computation Which is ex

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

None-the-less H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct. When the HP requires that a non-decider that is not a computation is required to compute halting for a non-input it contradicts the axioms of computer science and therefore errs, thus ma

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 3 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Then you're not talking about the halting problem, and H is computing something other that the halting function And the H that P calls is considered part of the program P so it's behavior must be considered. And since the fixed code of

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

When H is a C function and the input to H is a pair of pointers to the the literal string of the machine code of P, passed on the stack then H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Not when we are talking about C functions and x86 machine-code Jackass. The input to the C function H is a pair of pointers to the the literal string of the machine code of P, passed on the stack.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

The input to H(P,P) represents P(P) by definition. P(P) halts, so H(P,P)==0 is incorrect. This is demonstrated by: * P(P) halting * UTM(P,P) halting * Hb(P,P) ==1, where Hb simulates for k steps more that H Going into more detail, th

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Not for the specific machine language that I am referring to. So OK you prove that you intend to stay in despicable liar mode. You proclaim by lying bastard dictatorial fiat that the input to H(P,P) halts even though its correct executio

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

The *only* criteria for whether the result of H(P,P) is correct is whether P(P) halts, *by definition*. H(P,P)==0 and P(P) halts, so H(P,P)==0 is wrong. It's really that simple. And based on that, the simulation is shown to be incorr

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Let put that on hold and only examine whether or not H(P,P)==0 is correct. It is an easily verifiable fact that H(P,P)==0 is correct. If you disagree then that proves that you are a despicable lying bastard as is the case with everyone

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Just like everyone has explained to you dozens of times that, according to the definition of the problem, that H(P,P) must answer the question of whether P(P) halts, and no amount of waffling or restating your original point with no expla

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

More than that. I prove that the criteria that I use is correct and I prove the H(P,P)==0 is correct on the basis of that criteria.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

And by the criteria you use to show that H(P,P)==0 is correct, that exact same criteria shows that Ha3(N,5)==0 is correct. So if you believe the latter result is bogus, that means your criteria for determining the correctness of H(P,P)==

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

I have explained this to you dozens of times because you are a despicable lying bastard you pretend to not know what I said.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

I am talking about the correct simulation of the machine language of P being correctly emulated by another 100% specific finite string of machine language named H. When you change the subject away from this you become a despicable lyin

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

If it's simulated correctly then why does P(P) halt? Because that's what the input represents. And if it doesn't, H isn't answering the right question. You being unable to understand the correct explanation of others of why you are wr

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

What a complete jackass thing to say when you already know damn well the finite strings of machine language must be passed to functions that operate on them as pointers in C. The finite strings of machine language that are passed to H

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

So if you believe that Ha3(N,5)==0 is either wrong or irrelevent you should have no problem explaining why without just saying "strawman".

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

The sole purpose of your mantra, repeated again and again, is to avoid this key question: what is being simulated? H(P,P) has no "inputs". It has arguments. They are pointers. There is no such thing as a "correct simulation" of two p

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Yet another God damned lying bastard that uses the strawman error in an attempt to get away with deception.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

So if we look at the execution trace of Ha3(N,5), where the halt criteria of Ha3 is no more than 3 steps, and N(x) runs for exactly x steps, we'll see that no lines of code are simulated incorrectly. Therefore, according to you, this is

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

So in other words even though there are no lines of code that are simulated incorrectly you still claim that the simulation is incorrect. THAT IS WHAT A DAMNED LYING BASTARD WOULD SAY.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it is verified to BE a lie. You haven't refuted the errors I have pointed out, and thus you are by default accepting them as vaild, and that your trace is just not correct. LIARS need to just keep repeating the lies, as explaitions

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: Ben

Nothing?

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: Ben

If H is intended to be a halt decider (even if only for the one case you claim to care about) then H(P,P) == 0 is wrong, because P(P) halts. If a "correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)" is a simulation of the function call P(P), the

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

The fact that a correctly reverse engineered execution trace of the input to H(P,P) through one simulation and one nested simulation derives this trace: Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[000013

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

We don't know that, since it isn't true (at least if H claims to be a Halting Decider). You should know that you can't actually KNOW something that isn't true. You may BELIEVE that it is correct, but it isn't, and that reason has bee

Re: cia (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

Just an additional comment about the CIA: The continued incessant harassment campaign appears to be an attempt to prove that you are "dominant repetitive morons" with no talent at anything but harassment; you commissioned some toys from

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: Ben

By all means, keep banging on about an H that is not a halt decider, but don't try to guess what other people know. How are you getting on writing a parity checking TM?

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

You have known that the input to H(P,P) is simulated correctly proving that H(P,P)==0 is correct for the whole six months and you only deny this to play sadistic head games.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it is't. If it was the execution path of hte ACTUAL execution of P(P) (which is the definition of a correct simulation) then only one instance of P would be seen, then a trace of the simulator simulating its copy of that. This isn

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

You have known that my trace is correct the whole time over the last six months.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

Yet another God damned dishonest dodge.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope/

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 6 Hours ago by: Ben

Why are you shouting? You seem to be getting worked up, but I can't see why since it can't possibly matter you that some random idiot on Usenet (i.e. me) thinks you are full of it. Just publish your paper and bask in the glory. (You s

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 6 Hours ago by: B.H.

I have another really good supplementary idea to add to this: A good thing that some people could build: An "economy-friendly behavior incentivization program." If you wanted to help the economy and benefit from it, one thing you coul

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT IS PROVIDED THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT THE TRACE PROVIDED IS CORRECT.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT IS PROVIDED THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT THE TRACE PROVIDED IS CORRECT.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT IS PROVIDED THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT THE TRACE PROVIDED IS CORRECT.

The joke about the Obama-Biden-Congressional/CIA mentality.

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 7 Hours ago by: B.H.

"Unconditional Loyalty." The idea is, even if Nancy Pelosi converts to Satanism, works to ban all social liberalism, and declares the United States a dictatorship, you are supposed to "like Nancy" no matter what she does. If she plucks

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Do not destroy my medication. You idiots are acting like "proving that you can act like nothing matters" is a smart strategy. No wonder you are such losers at everything you do, hahahahahahah.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But the copy of H that P calls IS "User Code". That is a fundamental error. EVERYTHING that P does is part of its execution, and needs to be considered. After all, Turing Machine, which this is supposed to be the equivalent of, don't

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

No this is not true. The emulator is hard-coded to only output the execution trace of user-code and to not output the execution trace of any operating system code. Honest people with sufficient technical competence would be able to r

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 9 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

PO has provided an explanation. The first seven instructions are output by the emulator directly. It then switches off tracing when it detects that it is emulating itself. The second seven instructions are the output of the emulated progr

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope. I guess you need to take reading lessons. Maybe you a nap time or your binky. I told you what the REAL correct trace of the simulation of the input to H(P,P) would be, at least if H is supposed to be a Halt Decider. I guess the

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE THE INPUT TO H(

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, since a proper reverse-engineering of what the trace SHOULD look like should have your first 7 lines, then a trace of what happens in H, and the the trace of what that P does when H returns to it. THAT is what the trace should lo

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Don't interfere with my health.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

When you reverse-engineer what the trace should be then you can confirm that the trace provided is correct without having the source-code for H or seeing the 237 pages of the execution trace of H.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Why do we need to "Reverse Engineer" the trace, when you can just run it. Unless you don't actually have an H? Also, as been pointed out, that isn't even a correct "Reverse Engineering", as it doesn't match what P actually does. Maybe

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The being inline isn't the issue, not being distinct enough from the rest of the tape was. Colors would work well on a screen, but don't make good text files. adding a space around the [s|t] might make it more visable so line 4 would

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, because there is no signs of the simulator simulating its input, so there is no "nested simulation" Nope. Maybe try holding your breath until you are blue in the face. That might get people to understand you better. Just repeati

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So you say, but it doesn't actually match with what you claim. A trace of the simulation of an input should show the trace of the simulation of THAT input, and not switch to a different simulation even if of the same input at a differn

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

NONE-THE-LESS WHEN WE REVERSE ENGINEER WHAT THE CORRECT NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD BE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT IS PROVIDED THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING THAT THE TRACE PROVIDED IS CORRECT.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ Ben is a Liar ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: Ben

So you say. But there are no signs of anything but an edited sequence of function calls. No emulation code appears at all. You may have removed the evidence that you are right, but that would an absurd thing to do. Post H and I'll g

the dow jones

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/.DJI:INDEXDJX?window=1M ....the Dow Jones industrial has lost a little over 6.25% since I disclosed my idea and wasn't released. That was exactly 3 weeks ago. In the 3 weeks before that, the Dow had

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

IT IS THE TRACE OF A CORRECTLY SIMULATED NESTED SIMULATION OF ITS INPUT. WHEN WE CREATE A TRACE OF WHAT THE CORRECTLY SIMULATED NESTED SIMULATION OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) WOULD LOOK LIKE IT EXACTLY MATCHES THE TRACE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDE

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: Ben

The trace shows no sign of any nested simulation -- though since you'd edited the trace (apparently) you might have removed such signs. But for people when still care about the halting problem, the trace says nothing about H(P,P) giving

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree)[ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

This <is> the trace of the nested emulation of the input to H(P,P) Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55 push ebp // enter P ....[00001353][0021233e][002

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: Ben

I really don't care. The trace of a nested emulation would not look like your trace. And if you've edited it so as to make it look there is no nested emulation, then you are very foolish. Good luck finding someone to take this serious

poster posting as "senor dingus"

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Go away, don't talk to me.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

THIS IS A FACT THAT CAN BE VERIFIED BY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT GOD DAMNED LIARS THAT HAVE THE REQUIRED TECHNICAL SKILL: The trace provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its input IS THE TRACE OF A CORRECTLY SIMULATED NESTED SIMULATI

Why does not the second recursion theorem guarantee a least fixed

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: Newberry

What does it mean that the first recursion theorem guarantees the existence of the least fixed point, but the second one does not? If there is at least one (pseudo) fixed point then there must be a least one, must it not?

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

That is either a lie or you are very stupid and I do not believe that you are very stupid. If you simply hypothesize that nested emulation is occurring the traces are consistent with this. H is deciding the behavior of its correctl

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

I don't want to post the code because I want to work this out on my own. I have been ill for the last few days. Today my immune system has come back.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Ben

The program has a user-defined trace format, so I've been experimenting. You might prefer to have the tape head set off with spaces and the current state underneath: 0 ______________________________ ( (()))______________________

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

That looks like it goes wrong at the first point where the tape is actually CHANGED by writing a different character to what's already on the tape? If so, what could go wrong? Either You write the wrong character, or you write the cor

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

yes, I missed that [ | and ] all look similar on the screen without good context. Maybe adding a space outside the [ ] would make it more readable, though maybe reading them enough makes it not needed.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Ben

I don't lie. Your trace does not show what you claim H is doing. And having admitted to editing the traces, no one is going to believe you. But I urge you, most forcefully, to find someone to review your claims who you have enough res

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So you know at what point your bug appears. My guess is still that you aren't saving the tuple to execute all atomically.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You mean replace yourself? The other people are not lying, you are. LIE. H does NOT do a "Pure Simulation" by the meaning of the words, since it can abort its simulation. There is no such thing as Conditional Unconditional processing

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

ERROR IN TRACE. call 000011a2 should be followed by a trace of the instruction at 000011a2 Your emulator is broken. You SAY it emulates. Your TRACES says that it calls. Nope, call 000011a2 is not folowed by a actual execution of th

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Ben

But is there any doubt about what the correct action is? You implied there was some ambiguity in the specification. My suggestion is that this is just a bug.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (smart honest people would agree) (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

I can simply upgrade to smarter people that don't lie. They would be able to confirm that the execution trace of the first 7 instructions of the input to H(P,P) is the execution trace of P. Malcolm already did that. When I tell them th

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 12 Hours ago by: Ben

The current symbol is in the []s as well: [0|(].

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

My TM gets the first 4 state transitions correctly and then diverges from TM.exe

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

H(P,P) emulates P(P) that calls H(P,P) within this emulation that creates the first nested emulation within an emulation that emulates P(P). Here is the execution trace of P for all that: Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution

Re: cia (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 13 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Choke on a ballsack.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ben

(Your correction added) Yours traces are edited. No one will believe them until you post the real trace, and even then you will have some work to do to convince people you are being honest about the output. Anyway, it's no skin off my

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Not even knowing his program I can read it. In the middle is the current state in brackets [] to the left of that is the tape to the left of the head. to the right of that is the tape under the head and to the right. Thus the first li

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You are a legend in your own mind and will be remembered (if remembered at all) for being an idiot. A Genius can figure out how to explain his ideas to someone with a lessor mind. You can't, you can only reiterate your incorrect logic

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ben

If you want to know, just ask. I don't need to see any more traces. My interpreter has a trace format command-line option so I can generate this sort of trace if you find it easier to follow. I prefer the compact form myself (obvious

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nop,e but you seem to be too dumb to unddrstand so acting like a 2 year old. The first 7 lines are correct. P then calls H, so the trace MUST show the actions of H. That is NOT just calling P, as the trace implies, as then it couldn't

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 19 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

So it's nested emulation. Not nested calls. H emulates 7 instructions of P. Then P calls H. So what does H do at this point? Does it call H, or emulate H? Fair enough, the first seven instructions of P are correct. If it's nested emulat

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott

would not help.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott

If you can't understand that a single page already proves that H(p,P)==0 is correct it is certainly the case that providing 237-fold more details. ONE CAN VERIFY THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE IS CORRECT ON THE BASIS THAT THE EXECUTION TRAC

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 3 Days 22 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

That's an insult to CS grad students even though the general competence level has fallen in the last few decades. I believe this task can be done by a fair number of children in the last years of elementary school with a decent teacher

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: olcott

I can't quote tell what that says. The original TM.exe provides a good trace. ((())) ^ state: 0, next quint: 0((0R ((())) ^ state: 0, next quint: 0((0R ((())) ^ state: 0, next quint: 0((0R ((())) ^ stat

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: olcott

You are a a nasty jackass and karma will catch up with you.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: Ben

It's the definition of the state transition function. It is what it is. Here is the TM you talked about (paren.tm) accepting a string: $ ./tm -f paren.tm "(())" 0 ______________________________[0|(]())__________________________

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: Python

You are a delusional pathetic psycho, and you'll die so.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: olcott

As an objective fact, I am a genius. Any opinion that disagrees with a fact is necessarily incorrect.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: Python

You've always been, idiot.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: olcott

I have been ill, nitwit.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: Python

Peter, Peter, Peter, ... You just failed miserabily on a routine exercise (not exam!) for graduate students, come on!

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Only by your logic, which has been proved faulty.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days ago by: Richard Damon

WHY? That is what the line means.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

Objectively I am a genius.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: Python

Peter Olcott wrote:

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: B.H.

0

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

That does not actually work. I want to do this only my own.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: Ben

I see nothing vague about it. δ(p, X) = (q, Y, L) means that in state p, with X at the tape head, replace the X with Y, move the head left and enter state q. People will help you debug the code if you post it. And if you think there

Re: steps or stairs of upto treewidth four are the power +++ daniel (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

nastiness comes from pain so one two four ibuprofen jdpnpr

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: B.H.

I don't agree with that, I think the medallions should be given to Al Gore for safekeeping. -Philip

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (TM design) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

I do all of the steps in the exact order that they are specified and it does not work. The problem is that the spec is vague on which input symbol is required for the state transition. The second spec says transition specifies this:

Re: steps or stairs of upto treewidth four are the power +++ daniel (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

i didnay play the minus appearing in the middle of my writing again and again in buggy ways easily well repairable daniel

steps or stairs of upto treewidth four are the power +++ daniel

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 1 Hour ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

but what do i meany daniel

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] TM design (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

How many? None? Let's just add this to the list, OK?

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

three one pound gold government medallions for president jrb jdp

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

amongum obscure details of topgun bidens first pull the trigger in the only intergalactic war ever won by humanity versus the one hundred state machines of reality systems jdp

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

i am the five billion dollar cia blackmailer when they really must pay to me for some of my good works and words jdpnpr

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi Daniel, If you're interested in my $1000 offer for emails you should email me at philipjwhite@yahoo.com when you can...if you have to wait that's fine. The purpose of the idea is to creative incentive for people to contact me and "br

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] TM design (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

That design would be O number of log2(unique state + input pairs) Not anywhere near the number of possible inputs, only the ones that are actually used per state. (0((0R (0)A1L (0AA0R (0 2L (1(A0R (1AA1L (1 NR Prather has 0 instead o

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Are you remembering to lookup ALL the data for the transition and save it before changing any of the data. The sequence should be: Find the rule save next_state, new_symbol, tape_direction update state = next_state; write new_sybol to t

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

dear phillup bounty hunters money space time linear value equations truthfully equillibrated the einstein revised to includy the greasy finger stab at dark energy the newton revised paralleling masses two with distance one squar

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But it is easy to convert the sparce matrix into a dense one with a simple mapping layer, and if you keep the inverse map around it is still simple to make your output (and keep even that O(1)) The other option is to use a hash table t

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

Rather than shouting, you could either publish an honest, un-edited execution trace, or you could publish H itself (yes, an extraordinary suggestion!). Until you do, you have nothing but a fake trace and an H that does not decide the ha

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

Unlikely. It's called a bug. I am amazed that your reaction to the fact that your program does not do what it should is that the specification is wrong. It's just a common or garden bug.

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

What is N? Then you've changed the design. Fair enough. The software that was going to make you millions? I remember that. How many copies did you sell in the end? How is that length not O(mn)? Sounds like the design you sugges

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

I planned on having this done by now. The problem seems to be that the specification of the state transition function is not precise enough. A transition rule of a Turing machine has the following form δ(p, X) = (q, Y, L). pXYqL This

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Actually it is far less than that. It is the exactly same thing as my OCR DFA. The average length of the list of state + input pairs. With 24 million pixels and hundreds of thousands of states N tended to be about 20---> O log2(20). To

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

So maybe another month or so and you can start to write a parity checking TM? Those out-of-place lines can be a bugger to find ;-)

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

You can't possibly know. For one thing, I have written more than one interpreter since you suggested you were going to do this. No. There is no point in talking about N without saying what N is. From what you've posted, I would ima

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Normally for a DFA one always has O(1) because the current input and current state are in a fully populated matrix. When the current state, current input are in a sparse matrix a fully populated matrix wastes too mach space. In this ca

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

My design is O(1) for state transitions, so it scales even better. (Bit more overhead on reading in the design, but is O(1) for running)

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

I have been sick from chemotherapy. I almost had to go the the hospital again last night. I had to spend two days in the hospital three weeks ago. My design scales much better than Ben's design. Ben's design takes O(N) for state transitio

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

I said "will get ruined enough." I'll spare the CIA the 0 during this difficult time, for them.

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

I think I realized what I can do to get out: Basically, if I publish nothing, the economy will be devastated, because the economic models will have to assume that people are very irrational--very naive in terms of their processes. Peop

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words) (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

NOPE, Becaue P calls H, but the trace doesn't show anything in H. H is defined to EMULATE its input, not call it. So, why don't we see the EMULATION of H EMULATING P? Just shows you are LYING, and presenting a FALSE trace.

Re: I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

One thing I forgot: - A TM process is rational if and only if we restrict attention, for 75% of other actors in the game, globally, to such actors that themselves play rational strategies. Thus, the concept of rationality evolves and

I'm going to write about a key game theory theorem very informally.

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, Here is something pasted from my Facebook, which I'll delete later: - - - OK, I'm on it: I decided to prove a full "honesty theorem" about incomplete information game theory pretty soon...I will define: "a certain type

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 5 Hours ago by: Python

Peter Olcott wrote:

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (clearer words) (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

ONE CAN VERIFY THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE IS CORRECT ON THE BASIS THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) CORRESPONDS TO THE BEHAVIOR SPECIFIED BY THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF P WHERE H(P,P) CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT THAT CALLS H(

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 7 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But the trace is false, so the application of the rule is incorrect. H sees P calling H which CONDITIONALLY simulates P which calls H The CONDITIONAL simulation break your "rule" FAIL Nope, you have just proved that YOU are INCOMPETE

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

ANYONE WITH SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE THAT IS NOT A GOD DAMNED LIAR KNOWS THAT I ALREADY TOTALLY PROVED MY POINT THAT H(P,P)==0 IS CORRECT. #include <stdint.h> #define u32 uint32_t void P(u32 x) { if (H(x, x)) HERE: goto

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi Daniel, How have you been? I saw your post where you said you were looking for a job at Waffle House. Did that go well? If you need any tips on getting a good or better job, please let me know...I can give good advice about compute

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

You'll have to make it public one day, unless chatting on here is your only objective. No one will take deceptively edited traces as evidence of anything but you being shifty, and since you've already abandoned any pretence at talking a

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 9 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

spanish hog food nowadays daniel

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 9 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

there you have indian chicken or canadian fish is the hamburg choice daniel

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 9 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

avoid those white germany brats is my advice daniel

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 9 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

helps alleviate euron famines daniel hot dog from spain guy jdpnpr i put one handful of salt into holy grail fountain body of christ sarcophagus in the year 2000 before i returned home to la mesa san diego with nineteen hijackers on m

Re: A positive grocery store comment. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 9 Hours ago by: Daniel Pehoushek

special thanks in food industry to cardiff software computer vision +abcd n logbasefour of n pizel time and en space circa 1995 my vision code teleform codes are qr codes by daniel circa 1995 daniel gres 2380++/2380 in 1983 1530 sats in

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The LIE starts here. NO CPU will go to address 00001352 as a result of a call 000011A2. Thus, this is NOT a correct trace. Since you are basing you analysis on a FALSE trace, your results are invalid. You are just proving that your s

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But that isn't what the trace shows. The second trace of P is NOT what actually happens. But it DOES have inpact on the copy of P that calls it, and because H needes Except that you don't correctly emulate the REST of P, which inc

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

A confusing mess of ridiculously complex and totally irrelevant information that you have consistently proven incapable of comprehending. Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][0

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

It is a little annoying that I have to say this 150 times and people can't remember that I said it even once. I take this as head games. H(P,P) emulates its input that calls H(P,P) that emulates its input. Because H only emulates the f

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 15 Hours ago by: Ben

Another question you won't answer. What are you hiding? We already know that H is not deciding the halting instance that it should (i.e. whether the call P(P) halts or not) but it also seems you are being deceptive about what H is real

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 4 Days 19 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

P calls H. But H, as you have described it, doesn't call P. It emulates it. But the trace seems to show a call. The infinite cycle detector, as you have described it is based on a call. So it's unclear what is going on. And it turns out t

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 4 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott

I only want to treat you fairly and with honesty. Now that you have finally demonstrated excellent programming skills I finally have a basis to know a key aspect of your technical skills that were never previously confirmed. Anyone wi

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

Why? Since the code of H is PART of P, since it is called by it. Thus the COMPUTAION of P includes ALL the code of H as part of it, H needs to take it into account. It has been pointed out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for that trace to actua

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

THE TRACE OF H IS IRRELEVANT, WHAT ARE YOU STUPID? IF YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE TRACE THAT H PRODUCES THAT H CORRECTLY DECIDES ITS INPUT YOU SIMPLY ARE NOT ANYWHERE IN THE BALLPARK SMART ENOUGH TO CORRECTLY ANALYZE MY WORK. I AM MUCH M

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

You have trouble with agreement, don't you? Of course H is computing some function. It's just no a function anyone cares about.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

You can tell me that as often as you like. I will repeat -- your trace is at best deceptive by omission, at worst a deliberate lie being the trace of a function entirely unlike the one you pretend. We can can't tell which until you pub

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

Ah, "if". So you admit that you are tracing an H this is not the one you have been describing, or are you just trying to justify editing the trace? You should be clear on this point. Yes, I want to see a trace of the function you cla

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Then you have to accept that some Analytical Statements are True but not Provable, I think all you have done is proved that your "Correct Reasoning" is incorrect. Nope, not if F can support enough Mathematics. Your logic system is

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Sort of, and just as True. But it IS, that or Mathematics isn't Analytical, since the actual Godel Sentence is merely about the existence of some finite set of natural numbers, which, by definition, either exists or it doesn't. Nope

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope. H(P,P) is asking, BY DEFINITION about P(P) if H is attempting to be a Halt Decider. If it isn't asking that question, the H is NOT a Halting Decider, as the definition of a Something Decider is that it computes the Something Fu

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

HOW? A decider is a computation that halts for all inputs. A Computation is a merely a model of calculation based on a well defined algorithm. But that IS the question, can you actually make a Computation that can decide on the Hal

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Math a stipulated to be in the body of analytical statements the same way that a dog is stipulated to be an animal. Not at all. This is where logic diverges form correct reasoning. Cannot possibly be proved = untrue. Unprovable in F

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, how do you use the meaning of the words in "The Square of the Hypotonuse of a right triangle is equal to the sume of the squares of the other two sides" to show it is true? I think you will have problems.

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Then you did not meet my challenge. G is not true in F the same way and for the same reason that the Liar Paradox is not true. When we move outside of self-contradiction into Tarski's meta-theory it is true that the liar paradox is n

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And the trace starts to LIE right here unless H actually calls P But H is seeing things, since it is looking at an incorrect trace, unless the H that P called did just call P, then H is proven to NOT be a computation as H(P,P) does di

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The the trace needs to just stop at the call to H, but then you don't have anything to point at to "prove" your statement.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And you keep lying about it. Since P(P) NEVER calls another copy of P, the fact that the trace shows this happening PROVES it is not a correct trace, unless you are going to admit that H mearly calls its input (at least when called by

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The PROVE that "The Square of the Hypotonuse of a Right Triangle is equal to the Sum of the Squares of the other two sides" on the basis of its meaning. Or, is that NOT a analytic expression, and thus, most of mathematics is not disp

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

A century ago, Math was thought to be Analytical, and all Analytical statements eventually provable or refutable. It was then discovered that this can not be true. You need to decide, either you remove Mathematics from Analytical or yo

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } In the exact same way that sum(3,4) cannot match the results of sum(8,9). The definition requires a non-computation to compute therefore it is incorrect. These age old problems are only solve

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Your definition of halt decider contradicts the definition of a decider and also contradicts the definition of a computation, thus is incorrect. When we restrict the definition of a halt decider to a computation then H(P,P)==0 is a cor

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

One of these sentences is such an example, I don't know which one: The Collbatz conjecture is True. The Collbatz conjecture is False. The fact that I don't know which one doesn't make the arguement invalid, it points out that there i

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except that the answer doesn't match the FUNCTION that it is supposed to compute, the HALTING of P(P). Remember, HALTING is defined by does M(w) reach a final state in a finite number of steps. If H(P,P) returns 0, then P(P) does Halt.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Only if H isn't a Halting Decider. Since P(P) halts when H(P,P) is 0, it CAN'T be correct. DEFINITION. So you ADMIT that there is a compuation that H can't give the answer to the Halting Problem? That just PROVES the Theorem you are

the cia's "real-life chmod system"

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 4 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 It's still illegal and totally crazy; yes, if this system exists, you maybe got some dopey Congress dinosaurs all excited one last time about a technology that they understand. That doesn't make it a good idea. Also, deploying a tech

Innovative Activities Update: New non-fiction book idea.

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I have a new idea for a non-fiction book. I've decided not to reveal it, but I'm actively working on developing the concept, like I did for my debate book. I'm hoping to be released sometime soon; the US government made up

Re: A guess: Putin does not have blood cancer. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

This news story was in my Yahoo mail inbox; typically the stories I comment on are found on the Yahoo news website. https://news.yahoo.com/russian-talk-show-retired-colonel-184207547.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_04 My basic reaction

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

I'm contesting that and my STEM ideas are great. You're speaking gibberish again and dismissed, with an unsatisfactory review. If I choose to interact with you again I will notify you on this discussion group. -Philip White

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 6 Hours ago by: wij

The law is resolved. The chance left for you is to enjoy your rest life in prison with the phantom of unrealizable STEM innovations... But I can tell you a secret, the guard takes the bribe of diff eq (note that it only says you can leave

Re: male driver outside with license plate with letter KDJ in some (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

By the way, in response to a possible effort to use my own "argument pattern" to argue against me: Opponent: "Mr. White, by your admission, it is legitimate to not act on something without knowing the information behind the reason for

Re: Category error [ HEAD GAMES ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

ON THE BASIS OF THE X86 MACHINE CODE PROVIDED FOR P AND THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P PROVIDED BY H IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P IS THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P THAT WOULD OCCUR IF H PERFORMED A PURE SIMULATION OF THE FIRST 13 I

Re: male driver outside with license plate with letter KDJ in some (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

One way to look at my econ analysis is: I essentially have a fort, with a "complaints department" that processes and responds to literally every allegation against me while I'm under attack. I don't want any serious prospective allies t

male driver outside with license plate with letter KDJ in some order

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 I get what you're doing. I am not suspicious and have already fully and repeatedly explained myself; fugitive accused criminals who have preyed on me should stop making ridiculous allegations against me of things I haven't done, and s

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT H PERFORMS A PURE SIMULATION OF ITS INPUT THUS HAS NO BEHAVIOR THAT CAN HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS INPUT THUS NO NEED TO SEE ITS HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF EXECUTION TRACE ??? YOU ARE S

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

H(P,P)==0 is a correct computation. int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } H(P,P) (a dependent computation) cannot report on P(P) an independent computation in the same way that sum(3,4) cannot report on sum(8,7).

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

There is no freaking "might want" there is only <is> and <not is>. If you "might want the definitions of a term to be different than it is then you are simply screwy. It is stipulated that math and logic are purely analytical. Empiri

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: Ben

This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking about. The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, but it's something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and entering a simulator. You've

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function H(P,P)==0 i

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: Ben

Then H is not a halt decider: X(Y) is a computation entirely determined by the data to be found at X and Y (and possibly by following further links from that data). The two "input" pointers specify, without any ambiguity, the computa

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

When we know that H only performs a pure simulation of its input then we don't need to see the hundreds of pages of execution trace of H. SINCE I TOLD YOU THIS HUNDREDS OF TIMES YOU ARE BEING QUITE DESPICABLY DISHONEST ABOUT THIS.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

Not at all. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT IS DEFINED. It was only the quoted paragraph that was significant. Every expression of formal or natural language that can be determined to be true entirely on the basis of its meaning is an analytic

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

You did not provide an example of a sentence that is true that is not connected to anything else that shows that it is true. We know that logic sentences are true or false on the basis of the definition of logic sentence.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

“Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have historically been characterized as ones that are true by virtue of the meanings of their words alone and/or can be known to be so solely by knowing those meanings.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

If H^ is not a computation, then H isn't either. You are just proving that you don't understand what this topic is about. It has been shown that you can convert ANY Turing Machine to a representation, and the input to H is defined as a

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Note "Historically", that was what was assumed to be a characteristic of such statements, that they could be shown true or false by a manner of proof. Then, we got the proof that some statements, that might want to be called analytic

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it didn't, at least NOT with a "Correct Trace". It sees it a trace of P where H has been replaced with just a call to its input. Since that is NOT what H is, the logic is based on a false premise, an is thus unsound. If you are de

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

A self-evident truth requires ALL (or all reasonable) to aggree that it is true. If someone sees something as true that no one else does, that is not "self-evident truth", that is DELUSION. Analyses of philosophically important terms

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 5 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope. We know that one of the sentences is true. THAT sentence is not establisned by "Tautology" That sentence being true disproves your statement. Unless you are defining that "untrue or untrue" is True, you have a problem (and if yo

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 5 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Absolutely NOT. There does NOT need to be proof that something is true. IF you want to claim that, by YOUR definition, you need to actually PROVE it. And, you can't do that by assuming it, you need to actually PROVE it from the accept

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days ago by: olcott

A self-evident truth proves that it is completely true entirely on the basis of its meaning. If everyone in the universe disagrees then everyone in the universe is wrong. “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days ago by: olcott

That is connected to tautology.

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days ago by: olcott

Proof generically means that an expression of language has been definitely established as true by some means. That is the definition of analytic truth. “Analytic” sentences, such as “Pediatricians are doctors,” have historica

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 6 Days ago by: olcott

Unless and Until a (possibly unknown) connection exists between an expression of language back-chained by sound deductive inference steps to known truth, the expression is not true. None-the-less the sequence of inference steps must e

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days ago by: olcott

The elements of the body of conceptual truth are connected together semantically mutually defining the semantic meaning of each other. Mostly this is done in an inheritance hierarchy such that specific concepts are defined in terms of

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 6 Days ago by: olcott

Not when they are correctly simulated by H. You continue to push the nutty idea that the halt decider is required to "compute" on non-computation. Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days ago by: olcott

The key point is that the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) never reaches its own final state thus never halts. Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:212352 ....[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55

Re: A guess: Putin does not have blood cancer. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days 4 Hours ago by: B.H.

I said, "to fight to the point of destruction."

Re: A guess: Putin does not have blood cancer. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days 4 Hours ago by: B.H.

At 1:36 p.m. today, Garry Kasparov wrote an op-ed about Putin. His two key disagreements with me are: - Putin is a key target, according to Kasparov. - Ukraine must definitely not be allowed to fall into Russian hands. I don't know R

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days 7 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Shut up idiots.

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days 7 Hours ago by: B.H.

I mentioned the fact that your carelessness led to the weakening of support for Taiwan. You are like an obsessed stalker who spent so much time trying to fight a previously-friendly neighbor that he forgot to take care of his family, los

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days 8 Hours ago by: wij

I don't know much about the incident. What would you like to discuss? If I were a "fascist" or a "predator", I am a good fascist/predator in Heaven watching trafficking, torture and murder. What 'suffering' did you gloat and happy about?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

There are probably about two lines of code that are out of place.

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 6 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

If you are really from Taiwan: Did you and your political boss in Taiwan cause this shooting?: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/multiple-victims-shot-california-church-213000920..html Stepping up to the plate to get hit by my 0's is not a go

Re: A guess: Putin does not have blood cancer. (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 7 Days 13 Hours ago by: B.H.

By the way, it seems less likely to me now that the Russians would nuke us; it's possible that a detonation in Ukraine could happen, e.g., something related to Chernobyl, but I figure that if the Russians had wanted to nuke the US over n

A guess: Putin does not have blood cancer.

comp.theory

Posted: 7 Days 13 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-has-blood-cancer-oligarch-recorded-saying-50gx8mk6j I don't know if various parties have ways of confirming that Putin has blood cancer. Although I cannot be sure, I present as a "guess" that he d

Four More Simple EE Ideas That I Think I Could Build Now

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 6 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, This batch of ideas includes four simple-to-describe ideas that I think I can implement and build, as business products: 1 - "Sound stopper"--halt all noise/sound waves in an area, to effectively create "a muted and quiet"

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 8 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

I thought the issue being discussed was truth. How we know things is an entirely separate issue. No amount of examples is a substitute for a definition (especially examples like the above which have absolutely no explanation given alo

Innovation Update: New Mathematical Capability

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I just finished devising my idea, which appears to be quite correct although I haven't checked every step, for characterizing arbitrarily many solutions to individual equations and systems of equations. The technique(s) I've

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 15 Hours ago by: Ben

The two pointers X and Y can be taken to specify a function call X(Y). That's what they specify in the call D(X,Y) that you are trying so hard to avoid taking about. What you take them to specify in a call to your H is not interesting.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Given your track record, that makes it almost certainly wrong. Self-Evident, for logic, is a GROUP decision, that the group accepts it as self-evident and usable as a basis for common understanding. YOU fail with that definition. Also

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

One of: The Collbatz conjecture is True. The Collbatz conjecture is False.

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Which PROVES that you don't know the meaning of the word PROOF. By that standard, Collatz, and the Twin Primes, amoung many others, are PROVED. Source? That actually mean True, as opossed to just "Known True". Unproven, and thus by

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 8 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Which means it HAS a truth value of True or False but we don't know which. That is VERY difffernt then it having neither, which is what you have been claimiing (or at least what your words meant). This shows your confusion between Trut

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 18 Hours ago by: Mikko

Olcott's error contains an indirect recursion that is or is not infinite depending on details of his H. It is not possible to point a single statement of the program and say that the error is there, as there are other points that could b

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 18 Hours ago by: Mikko

Even when the same text can be interpreted as a proof or as a program, those interpretaions involve different semantics. Therefore the execution does not validate anything beyond the syntax. No, it is not. The definition C leaves much

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott

This is great we are trying to attain mutulual understanding now. When you look to see how you know anything about anything it is all connections between meanings. This is a connected set of meanings: "I am going to go to the store to

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

How does that make anything more concrete? If I don't know what you mean by 'semantic connection' why do you think I will know what you mean by 'connected'? And this is besides the point since you have the burden of proof backwards. I

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

Self evidently correct means that there are connected ideas that prove it is correct.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

You certainly have not done this so far. And you have a bad habit of referring to statements which are clearly false as 'self-evidently correct'. André

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

I can define it so that it can be seen to be self-evidently correct.

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

I will make that one concrete. Try to provide a sentence that is true that is not connected to anything else that shows that it is true.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

Given your dismally poor track record where even basic reasoning is concerned, why should anyone be interested in your particular view of what constitutes 'correct reasoning'? André

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

It can only be declared as having an unknown truth value.

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 8 Days 23 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

Yet people make proofs over infinite sets all the time. Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. Again, this is simply a baseless assertion, not an argument. And your use of the term 'analytic' doesn't seem to cor

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days ago by: olcott

Its in my head, I have begun to elborate it in my other reply to you.

Re: Category error [ --KEY_INSIGHT-- ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days ago by: olcott

Some of these terms are from standard analytic philosophy. Proofs over infinite sets can be tricky. KEY_INSIGHT: (a) The proof is that the entire body of analytic knowledge (including all math, logic, et cetera) is structured as seman

Re: cia (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 1 Hour ago by: Señor_Dingus

Shut up idiot.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And an UNPROVEN assertion, so by its own meaning, self-contradictory.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Yes, it proves that correct reasoning must be incorrect, because it says the laws of logic don't apply to the fields that they apply to. Wrong Question, showing you are still stuck in a category error. You keep on saying that a TRUTH t

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, just you making Herring in Red sauce. You are just proving your ignorance.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Source for this "Claim". It can not be labeld "Analytically True", yes, but nothing says it can not be True. (If we can't prove it True we can not use it to actually directly prove something else, but it can be True). You seem to be sa

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 3 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

Where exactly can one read up on this 'correct reasoning'? Can you point us to a source where its axioms and rules of inference are collected? Or is this just some vague concept that exists only in your head? André

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

This is simply the way that correct reasoning works and when logic diverges from this it becomes incorrect. Try and find any example of analytical truth that cannot be proven to be true.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

In this same way requiring a non-computation to compute is an incorrect problem definition.

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

That's an assertion, not an argument. That's an assertion, not an argument. And the logics which Gödel is considering all include the law of the excluded middle. There is no 'untrue' in these systems; only true and false. André

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Unprovable(F, G) merely means Untrue(F, G) and not Incomplete(F). (Untrue(F, G) and Untrue(F, ~G)) means ~Truth_Bearer(G).

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

In the same way that a TM can use a "box of oreos" to compute the length of a finite string a non-computation can compute the halt status of a non-input. The HP is defined incorrectly. It cannot be about computations, it must be about

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

We cannot correctly label any analytical expression of language as true unless and until: (1) It has been stipulated to be true. (2) a connected set of semantic meanings back-chain to expressions of language that have been stipulated t

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

There is one crucial difference -- Wittgenstein recorded his initial reactions to first hearing of Gödel's proof in a private journal which was never intended for publication (which explains why he never bothered to retract this rema

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

So you believe it is possible for a function D to be written such that D(X,Y) == true if and only of X(Y) halts and false otherwise? If so, you need to get on with it. That's the function the world cares about. That's the function that

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And, my understanding is that Wittgestein hadn't read Godel's paper at this point either, so he makes the same error you do of know knowing what he is talking about. What rule is that? The PRESUMES that True -> Provable, which has NOT

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ computer science is inconsistent ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Another of your famous nonsensical diversions. Since there IS NO "box of oreos" in Computer Science, you just committed another category error proving you don't know what you are talking about.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So something can be "Provable" yet no "Proof" actually be findable or expressable? That means you might not know if you have Proven Something. So, again, your are at the wrong end. If you want to change the fundamental definitions, y

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

8. I imagine someone asking my advice; he says: "I have constructed a proposition (I will use 'P' to designate it) in Russell's symbolism,and by means of certain definitions and transformations it can be so interpreted that it says: '

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 5 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

That's Gödel's commentary, not the actual content of G. Even if G did assert its own unprovability, there would be nothing self-contradictory about this. A sentence which asserts its own falsity is self-contradictory, one that asser

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Gödel says: We are therefore confronted with a proposition which asserts its own unprovability. Which is the same self-contradictory bullshit as the liar paradox.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

So in this same way we can make another undecidable problem in computer science: there is no "box of oreos" in computer science that can compute the length of a finite string in the same way that there is no non-computation that can co

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

So this is where correct reasoning and logic diverge on terminology. When I refer to a set of connected semantic meanings this seems not exactly the same thing as a proof. If this set does not exist, then the expression is not true. If

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 You've edited the 'c' character on my keyboard so that it won't work, so I have been pasting it. Stop illegal harassment and sabotage efforts against me at once, or continue facing the consequences. What idiot is dumb enough to believ

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, I don't thnk you have actually read what G is.G actually is a fairly innocuous, if complected, mathematical formula asking if there exsit interger roots (If I am remembering it correctly).

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You just don't understand do you. The Halting Criteria is NOT defined as a "Computable Function", so can't be in conflict with the definition of a decider. In fact, the question is "Is the Halting Function Commputable?" This means that

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

G is not provable in F only because G is semantically incorrect in F.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

FALSE. Where is the Collatz conjecture being True in that? (If it is) Unless you make the finite sequence from axioms to the result, you don't have a Proof. Then why are you talking about fields of LOGIC? Formal Logic STARTS with it

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except that they are, but you don't want to accept that, because you define "Truth" as something it isn't I will also point out that your statement is in contradiction to something you said recently that you only talk about "Analytical

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

OK great this is a key agreement between us. Analytically True or False is the same as True or False, except that is excludes expressions of language dealing with sense data from the sense organs. If it is true then there must be a

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 7 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Then stop talking about things that aren't analytically true. For instance, Godel's G is NOT 'Analytically True' in F, because you can't prove it, but it IS 'True' because you can show via a meta-logical proof in a higher system that i

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 7 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

Yes. In reality, tests often fail because of a bug in the test code rather than the function under test. You must check both pieces of code. That leads to the risk of a "fix" to the test code cancelling out a bug in the target function. Yo

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

There's no smiley, but you are joking, right?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

Most of the machine was the tape actions, now we are back to the state transitions.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 8 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

What we need is two more TMs: one to take a number n and double it, and one to take a number n and double it and add 1. Then we can use those output tapes to test the Even/Odd TM for some large numbers! :)

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 8 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

Excellent. Now we need to construct the rest of the machine.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 8 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

You have 21 consecutive 1s on the tape. The even/odd decider reports "parity even". Now is that because of a bug in the decider, or because you have miscounted the number of 1s? If the number of 1s is below 20, you can use fingers and toe

Non-negative commentary about CVS.

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

I wasn't bothered today by the CVS pharmacy...good. In general, "learning your place" and "learning to act appropriately" is very important and a good idea, especially on the job. I'm happy to have no complaints today. A concern, though

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

*A category mistake* or *category error* or *categorical mistake* or *mistake of category* is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1]

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

I am ALWAYS only talking about ANALYTIC TRUTH, the only time I ever talk about EMPIRICAL TRUTH, is to say that I am not talking about that. If the answer requires an infinite search then this answer cannot be derived in finite time. N

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake /Flibble

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: wij

Pete Olcott lied. There has never ever been a real simulation program. All rebuttals are (finally) made against nothing. Pete Olcott's brain is fossilized. All he says have no basis, just 'talk': 1. Rebuttal the HP -> No real H to rebut

Re: Category error (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

I stand by my claim that your use of the term: "category error" was a brilliant new insight into Gödel's 1931 incompleteness and Tarski 1936 undefinability. I refer to this same thing as a type mismatch error in that neither Gödel's

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorith

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

WRONG. Again you conflate Analytic truth with truth. The Collatz conjecture, that there exist no number N such that the sequence of progreesing to 3N+1 for N odd, and N/2 for N even doesn't eventually reach 1, MUST be either True of Fa

Category error

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

The other day I claimed there was a category error in the halting theorem proof but I was mistaken: the category error actually exists in Pete Olcott's understanding of the proof which manifests as an infinite recursion in his simulation; h

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except that you are ignoring that the definitions are NOT inconsistent, unless you require that Halting be computable. The Halting Mapping of Turing Machines is well defined, as a mapping of a Turing Machine + finite String Input -> {

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

No, I independently verified his reasoning before I ever saw his reasoning. That no counter-examples can possibly exist is complete proof that it is true. There are no categories of expressions of language that are both true and neith

Re: Innovation Publication Update: I'm Considering Publishing the (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 12 Hours ago by: B.H.

A revision: It occurred to me that anti-mentally-ill sentiment in the USA is so out of control that my curing cancer would be opposed anyway, because Americans do not prioritize mentally ill people enough. Thus, it is not in my interes

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 12 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, you THINK his reasoning is correct because you agree with it, That is NOT proof. You thinking it is shows your lack of understanding. Which either needs to be taken as an assumption, or needs to be proved to be true. If needs to

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

[ computer science is inconsistent ] If two definitions within computer science contradict each other then computer science itself is an inconsistent system thus conclusively proving that computer science diverges from correct reasoning

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

Since I wrote Wittgenstein's entire same proof myself shortly before I ever heard of Wittgenstein I have first-hand direct knowledge that his reasoning is correct. His full quote is on page 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/33

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

WRONG, you don't get to change the definition of the Problem. You are just proving that you don't understand the nature of logic, or of Truth. The Halting Problem STARTS with some arbitrary program. If that program can't be specified

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

Not at all. We must simply correct the error of the halting problem definition so that it does not diverge from the definition of a decider thus causes it to diverge from the definition of a computation. *The corrected halting problem

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

proofs-as-programs and programs do run, thus the mapping between the math and empirical validation of this math. C is a formal language of a formal system.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

It works.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You keep on missing that the mapping of a Foo Decider needs to match the Foo mapping, or it isn't a Foo Decider, but some other decider. Halting has a defined mapping. If you want to claim that mapping can't be imposed on a decider, th

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ philosophical underpinnings ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 13 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, He made the same mistake YOU are making and not understanding what Godel actually said (because he hadn't read the paper). As I understand it (and I will admit this isn't a field I have intensly studied), this statement is solely

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 14 Hours ago by: Mikko

That is a mathematical equivalence between mathematical structures. Nothing empirical there. Mikko

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 15 Hours ago by: Ben

That's an odd remark. Why should the test be limited to what I can count visually?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 17 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

All above this should be "private". The tape only has move one space left / right (either one function or two, it doesn't matter), Read() and Write() as public members. That's for the strict Turing machine. You'll also want an output funct

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott

In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the di

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: olcott

typedef unsigned char tape_element; // Tape_Type implements a two-way Turing machine tape. // Right contains Tape_Head >= 0 values (right expansion) // Left contains Tape_Head < 0 values (left expansion) // // Grows with Right.push_bac

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

You're using C++, so you need a class with the function to read the tape at the current head position, a function to write a symbol to the tape at the current head position, a function to move the head one place left, and a function to mov

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 18 Hours ago by: Mikko

There is a category error in that statement. Mathematical truths do not refer to empirical facts so they cannot be empirically proven. Whether H(P,P) == 0 is true or false is a mathematical question so it cannot be determined empirically

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: Mikko

Undecidable does not apply as the question is not about a claim but about a number. But no number satisfies all requirements. A common convention with problems of this type is that the clause "or prove that no solution exists" is omitted

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 19 Hours ago by: Ben

Well that's pretty clear. The halting problem, as defined by everyone by you (i.e. about which computations are finite and which are not) is indeed undecidable. You are even (almost) correct about the halting theorem. The two notions

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

That must compute the mapping form their inputs to their own final accept / reject state.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 9 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

He refuted Godel in a single paragraph and was so far over everyone's head that they mistook his analysis for simplistic rather than most elegant bare essence.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 23 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Just because a requirement can't be met doesn't mean it's wrong. It's simply an impossible problem. And, as stated before, the halting problem makes use of a halt determiner, not a halt decider. The former explicitly allows for a non-i

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

At least 4GB

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 9 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

I have not articulated this clearly enough yet.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days ago by: olcott

The halting criteria that the halting problem expects is wrong because it contradicts the definition of a computer science decider in some rare cases that no one never noticed before.

Re: Innovation Publication Update: I'm Considering Publishing the (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 1 Hour ago by: B.H.

I meant to say, "less bothersome now that my health has improved."

Innovation Publication Update: I'm Considering Publishing the Math

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 1 Hour ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, My health has been improving. As I said, I will think about what things were done well and what is fair, etc. etc., when I get out and make final decisions. One thing I've noticed as my health improves is that some of my em

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 1 Hour ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS8xMy8yMDIyIDY6MDYgUE0sIG9sY290dCB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gNS8xMy8yMDIyIDY6 NDggUE0sIEplZmYgQmFybmV0dCB3cm90ZToNCj4+IE9uIDUvMTMvMjAyMiAzOjE2IFBNLCBv bGNvdHQgd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4gT24gNS8xMy8yMDIyIDQ6MDYgUE0sIEplZmYgQmFybmV0dCB3 cm90ZToNCj4+Pj4gT24gN

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 1 Hour ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS8xMy8yMDIyIDM6MTYgUE0sIG9sY290dCB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gNS8xMy8yMDIyIDQ6 MDYgUE0sIEplZmYgQmFybmV0dCB3cm90ZToNCj4+IE9uIDUvMTMvMjAyMiAxOjEyIFBNLCBC ZW4gd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4gb2xjb3R0IDxOb09uZUBOb1doZXJlLmNvbT4gd3JpdGVzOg0KPj4+ DQo+Pj4+IE9uIDUvMTMvM

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

They are inconsistent with HIS idea that Truth must be provable, Which can't be Proved so isn't True in a system that wants to use it. It can only be an Axiom, but it has been proved inconsistent with most logic system that are complic

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 2 Hours ago by: wij

Hello dear BigHead: Holiday again, 7 a week. Don't you have anything to play, have fun? There are lots of things playful....everywhere... E.g. there is one drama in this forum right now: PO is enjoying 'playing' people like an idiot. I a

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 2 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

But you haven't identified any rules of logic which are inconsistent. André

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 2 Hours ago by: B.H.

What, IT firms love this? You're making it sound like Facebook is the only IT firm in the world...what are you, Barack Obama??

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The rules of logic ARE the rules of logic. PERIOD. If you disagree with what the logic says, fine, you reject those fields of logic as useful. Others disagree. Most others will say that YOU are incorrect. But it IS the foundation of

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So you accept as True the statement that "It is impossible to build a Turing Machine that can compute the ACTUAL Halting Mapping of Turing Machine and its input to whether that machine would halt given that input, by being somehow giv

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

Ah, sorry. It wasn't an answer. Just a diversion. But not answering is good. Often it tells readers more the an actual answer would do.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

Not-learned-by-any-method people spout nonsense on Usenet all the time. They don't get papers published. They don't contribute the sum total of human knowledge.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

That other people have made the same errors, doesn't make you right. Note also, you are refering to a person who lived nearly that century ago, to a man who admitted he didn't understand mathematics (and thought it not valuable) You a

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Learned-by-rote by-the-book people can't get past the fact that the book really cannot be relied upon as infallible because it is their only basis.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

Yours does not "scale" to even the simplest TM because it does not yet exist.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

When the rules of logic prove to be inconsistent then that proves that they do not correspond to correct reasoning, thus making them incorrect. This issue is the philosophical foundation of logic is inconsistent. I started in 1997. T

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

There's only one -- a computation either halts or it does not halt, and the is no ambiguity about what that means. (It can be made precise, but only using a formal model of computation and you don't know any of those.) The function cal

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, you are playing Humpty Dumpty? It sounds like you are just insisting on the axiom that True is Provable, which is NOT an axiom that is part of Computation Theory, and in fact has been proven that if added to this sort of field of l

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

That the definition of the halting problem criteria (in some rare cases) directly contradicts the definition of a computer science decider that requires all deciders to compute the mapping from their inputs conclusively proves that the

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it has been proven that H can't possibly simulate the input to a final state, so you have proved that H can't prove its input Halts. You haven't proved that it doesn't halt, at least not by the REAL definition of Halting (which you

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Because of the simplicity that you claimed it probably could not quite have the scalability that mine has.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Tape_Type does seem to be an optimal way to define a TM tape in C++, thus providing the other aspect of my design that has unlimited scalability. Scalable state change is the other aspect.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

IF you aren't talking about Formal Logic and the rules for it, then you are talking in the wrong place. Note, you don't get to change the rules. If you really want to try to turn the whole field of logic on its head, you really need to

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Tarski concluded that no universal Truth(x) predicate can exist on the basis of his failure to prove that the liar paradox is true. The HP proves that no malformed halt decider that violates the definition of a decider can correctly de

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

But it not the correct halt status for P(P) which is what the world wants and why you know you'll never get this silly idea published.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

You don't have a TM interpreter yet! So presumably you mean you'll keep your design even though you don't know if mine scales. You have always stated strong opinions based on little knowledge.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS8xMy8yMDIyIDM6MTYgUE0sIG9sY290dCB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gNS8xMy8yMDIyIDQ6 MDYgUE0sIEplZmYgQmFybmV0dCB3cm90ZToNCj4+IE9uIDUvMTMvMjAyMiAxOjEyIFBNLCBC ZW4gd3JvdGU6DQo+Pj4gb2xjb3R0IDxOb09uZUBOb1doZXJlLmNvbT4gd3JpdGVzOg0KPj4+ DQo+Pj4+IE9uIDUvMTMvM

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

Is that an answer? It's almost a concession (for the wrong reasons mind you) that no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y) halts and is false otherwise. But you won't give an explicit answer will you? As I've said b

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 3 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

But your H is a halt decider, not a halt determiner, so it has nothing to do with the halting problem. But your H1 is a also halt decider, not a halt determiner, so it has nothing to do with the halting problem. As you've usefully sho

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

The key thing here is not my lack of extremely in depth understanding of all of the subtle nuances of computer science. The key thing here is my much deeper understanding of how logic systems systems sometimes diverge from correct reas

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

I am referring to a system of correct reasoning and showing how symbolic logic diverges from this.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H has proven that th

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, YOUR definition of truth gets proved to be inconsistent with the system. If you want to insist that Truth must be Provable, then you need to strictly limit the capabilities of your logic system. Your failure to understand this just

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

My system rejects expressions of language that are impossibly true such as expressions that are true and unprovable.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nopw, not the same definitions by the normal definitions. If your going to play Humpty Dumpty then you are just admitting that you have lost already, because you are admitting that your goal isn't to find truth but to create obfuscatio

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives up to the point where H has proven that t

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Based on H being a halt *decider* as opposed to a halt *determiner*, and the latter is what everyone else is interested in. But as you've shown, a halt *decider* is not computing a pure function of its inputs because H1(P,P) and H(P,P)

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Then why dod you say "Possible truth", if you meant an ACTUAL truth. How about; x: there exist a number N that the 3N+1 / N/2 pattern never gets to 1 True(x | ~x) is KNOWN to be true, but isn't a Stipulated Truth or a Proven Truth by

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

STILL proving you don't know what you are talking about. You have proved no such thing, since H does not do a CORRECT simulation (which will never abort, since machines don't just stop in the middle) You also prove you still don't unde

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Inconsistent is another word for incorrect, thus in any system of correct reasoning there can be no contradictory definitions.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Right, they both ARE correct, and make the system inconsistent. That is the meaning of the word DEFINITION. (and an inconsistent systems tend to make a hash about 'truth' in that system, as you tend to be able to prove and disprove a l

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

All undecidable problems always have very well hidden logical incoherence, false assumptions, or very well hidden gaps in their reasoning otherwise the fundamental nature of truth itself is broken.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

It is almost done. Very soon.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. Not only must a halt decider compute the m

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ previously undiscovered rare cases ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

<snip distractions> As expected, no answer. You can't answer this because you know that would be the end of you bragging about halting.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Mine is certainly designed to scale so on this basis I will keep mine.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ unlimited scalability ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

But it's not done yet. Something good now is better that perfect that never arrives... Any ETA for working code that can run BB(5)?

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

It has been empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the empirically proven correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) that H derives. Not only must a halt decider compute the

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

It's not a method I like. When yours program is working, you can do timings any way you like. (And since the code is C++ you might want to look at std::chrono::high_resolution_clock.) Well, it's better because it's finished. It may

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

But not obvious enough to get it published! Come, now. You know its nonsense.

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 4 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Already wrong.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

It absolutely is. Those string inputs map 1-to-1 with a turning machine as per the definition of a halt determiner. I also see that you deceptively removed the definition of a halt determiner and the description of how that fixes the

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Same post same author: How is this definition? Deciders compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state. – Feb 19 at 17:55 This is the standard definition. – Yuval Filmus Feb 19 at 17:56 Then it is no longer a

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Probably an unconscious strawman error, that does not contradict my original claim because it is a strawman error. True(x) iff Stipulated_True(x) or Proven_True(x) I am referring to <is> true and you are referring to <might be> true, t

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

There is no contradiction regarding the definition of a decider. From your preferred definition: Even then, there's nothing that says an input can't represent something else as implementation detail of what can actually be passed. But

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, if you can create an uncountable number of combinations, you CAN'T just use the countable number of base elements. Proving is based on creating a FINITE (or countable) sequence of steps that combine a FINITE (or countable0 number

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The result of applying the operation of replacing N by N/2 if N is even or by 3N+1 if N is odd will eventually get you to the number 1 for all Natural numbers N > 0. This statement MUST be either True or False, by its nature, there is

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

That is a naive thing to say. This means that a pair of contradictory defininitions within the same system would both be correct. This is simply not the way that truth actually works.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, your are just talking nonsense. See my other answer.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about. Definitions can not be 'incorrect', as they are DEFINITIONS. They can be non-sensical or inconsistent, but the definition of Halting doesn't have that problem, any co

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Uncountable truths that are entirely comprised of different combinations of countable constituent parts are evaluatable on the basis of these constituents that are later recombined back into the original expression.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Can you actually PROVE that statement, if not, by its own defintion, it isn't True. If you resort to making it an axiom, then you run into the issue that the accepted axioms define the system, and don't apply to systems that don't ta

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Unprovable means untrue and does not mean false in Prolog. There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of language can possibly be true: (1) It is stipulated to be true. (2) It is derived by applying only truth preser

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is simply untrue. That

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is simply untrue. That

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is simply untrue. That

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it doesn't contradict that definition. The Halting Problem is asking IF you can make a machine to do x. If the definition of a decider means that it can't do x, then the answer is NO, you can't make a machie to do x. You are off b

logic

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

this sentence is false. olcott is a gas. /Flibble

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

There is only ONE definition of the Halting Problem, can you make a machine that answers in finite time if the Machine M applied to input w will Halt, by giving it a representation of that machine and input. If it is impossible by you

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

In any case my design goal of unlimited scalability is met by my design. This was also designed into my state transitions.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope doesn't work. Remember, formal system are based on a finite, or perhaps extended to countable, number of base axiom. I think you basis is going to hit the problem that the number of natural language 'facts' you are entering into y

Re: A comment about IT job interviews (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

Regarding my particular outcome: I think I get when it will be over. Donald Trump "came close to releasing me" in Sept 2020; he doesn't understand or react to math/logic arguments, so it wasn't until he saw with own eyes what had been

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Which means... ? Prolog, as I remember, ASSUMES that anything not provable is FALSE (not 'untrue'). So there exists an integer number N is neither Even or Odd? (it is untrue for both tests) I don't think you actually understand what

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, just provesw that H (and you) are not using the REQUIERED criteria. The "proof" that H is correct is incorrect based on the right definitions of the terms, and only proves that you are not working on the Halting Problem. Note, y

A comment about IT job interviews

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I think I know something about an unfortunate conversation taking place in important IT job interviews these days: Interviewer: You are qualified and have got the job. Any questions? Applicant: If I were targeted and the

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

THen H is PROVEN to not be a Halt Decider, because the Halting Mapping is defined differently. If the definition of H doesn't match the requirements of the problem, then it just fails to be an aswer to the problem. You lack of underst

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Nothing but more bad analogies with no explanation, which means you're unable to explain why I'm wrong, and that you therefore implicitly agree that I'm correct. So how are you going to spend your time now that you're no longer working o

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

I am saying that no matter how hard you try to make believe that the cat in your living room is a dog, it is still a cat.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

So you're saying the requirement can't be met? That means you agree with the conclusion of the halting problem proofs that there is no input you can give to H to correctly determine whether P(P) halts. You mean like how the execution t

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

My original intent was to rewrite this to give it a three minute learning curve. http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/turing.html It is also useful for me to understand TM's better by writing one from scratch.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

This always works well for me. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/c_standard_library/c_function_clock.htm I want to know if your version is better than mine. When I am all done I want to have the best version.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ very (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

That is the same as defining the cat in your living room to be a dog. It is empirically proven that H(P,P)==0 is correct on the basis of the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H. It is proven to be correct because the executi

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

Everyone as noted and/or commented on the fact that PO does not read all that he cites or all that he criticizes. My conjecture is that he has a learning disability that is manifest in his inability to stay focused on or retain what he

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning [ (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

Tarski makes a similar mistake when he concludes that True() is not a definable predicate entirely on the basis that he cannot prove that the liar paradox is true. It never occurred to him that the liar paradox is simply untrue. That

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Ben

What new delusion is this? Your "version" is not a deque. What is it a version of? What does it perform better than? Not reliably measurable. I could do more robust tests but that's not what I want to do today.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

The input, by definition, specifies P(P). P(P) halts, therefore by definition the correct answer is 1. H(P,P)==0, therefore H is wrong. More projection.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

Untrue means the same thing as Prolog's negation as failure. If you defined your terms correctly, then yes because this has been stipulated in your deinitions. There are only two possible ways that any analytical expression of langu

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Ben

It is now dead obvious that you accept that no algorithm can do what the world calls "decide halting". That is, in the context of C-like code that you are more comfortable with, no D can exist such that D(X,Y) is true if and only if X(Y

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

Most "heavy duty" theorem proving programs use resolution style logic and are beholding to the fact that "false -> anything" is valid. The standard approach is to reform the theorem so that you assume that the gives, axioms, whatever a

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

An infinite recursion that only exists in your simulation and not in the proofs you are attempting to refute. Your simulation is based on a category error and is thus invalid. Give it up and do something useful with the rest of your life

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, you don't know what is still valid to use? And what does 'untrue' mean? We know that there is a number that solves an equation, but we don't know that number, or how to compute that number. Can we say that it is true that such a

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

That the execution trace provided by H(P,P) exactly matches the behavior that the x86 source-code of P specifies conclusively proves that the simulation of the input to H(P,P) is correct. How much longer are you going to deny this empi

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct empirically in that it does correctly decide the halt status that its input specifies. That is does not specify the halt status that you expect makes your expectation incorrect.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

No two contradictory definitions in the same system can both be correct. That H(P,P) does correctly decide the halt status that its input specifies make H(P,P)== 0 necessarily correct. That is does not specify the halt status that you

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: wij

Where is the actual POOH? We only hear you lie all day long.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

And your H doesn't perform a correct simulation as has been described many times. If the answer H gives doesn't match the defined mapping: H applied to <H^> <H^> reports halting if and only if H^ applied to <H^> halts, and H applied to

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

It has been DEAD obvious for years that you don't actually understand what you are saying and don't understand how any of this actually works. If we can believe you, soon YOU will be dead, and we will be relieved of having to show you

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Definitions can't be incorrect. They just "are". False, as has been explained many times. Which is just a fancy way of describing how H manages to get the wrong answer. So no time for yourself?

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

The ultimate measure superseding and overruling every other measure is the actual behavior of the actual input as demonstrated by a correct simulation of this input by the simulating halt decider.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

That is easily shown to be factually incorrect on the basis of the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) compared to the direct execution of P(P). They have empirically proven entirely different sequences of configurations. I have

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

Not when all of natural language semantics has been fully formalized and directly integrated into its own formal system. I created Minimal Type Theory to express HOL using very slightly adapted syntax of FOL. In an early version of MT

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, since BY THE PROBLEM STATEMENT of the Halting Problem, the "actual behavior" of the input to H applied to <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>. If you claim it means anything else, you aren't working on t

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

It is dead obvious to everyone (except you) that H(P,P) == 0 is incorrect because the actual behavior that the input actually specifies is, by the definition of the problem, P(P). Projecting. Again. You're the one ignoring verifiable

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

True and unprovable become impossible because Provable() is an aspect of True().

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input actually specifies. This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet my

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

My first thought is that if you are going to be limiting your reasoning capability to simple things. You seem to be stuck in using simple logic methods, which will limit what you can actually prove. What you don't seem to understand is

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

Except you haven't show any instances where it diverges from 'correct reasoning'. You gave an example argument which was *not* valid, claimed that it was valid and that this "fact" was somehow a problem. The only problem I can see is y

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

The precisely listed categories. Not at all, only the precisely listed categories are needed. Credibility often proves to be a crappy measure of validity especially for brand new insights. It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

I am saying that I am redefining the concept of logical validity to eliminate its divergence from correct reasoning. A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary conseq

poster posting as "senor dingus"

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Again, go away, I don't want to interact with you and I doubt anyone else does either. Please stop bothering me.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Chris M. Thomasson

Flip a coin; heads left, tails right. Heads, try to pop from left. Tails, try to pop from right. Just joking around here, in a sense... ;^) Actually, back in the day with my threading work, I have subdivided a lock-free stack into re

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

Change everything that diverges from my spec: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form such that its conclusion is a necessary consequence of all of its premises. Semantic relevance is maintained. It co

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But you have, isn't the criteria to understand your own proof: So, the first item is sufficient technical competence, which would include the basic builing blocks of software, like the deque. Also, you claim to have the training to ha

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 7 Hours ago by: wij

H does not exist !!!. Your POOH is incorrect, totally garbage, nonsense. According to GUR https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M It is dead obvious that correct halting decider dose not exist.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

None-the-less my version does perform better and is much simpler on the operations that I need. What is the speed difference? It may be that yours is simply better than mine. Faster, smaller and simpler is definiitely better, dependin

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

It has been dead obvious that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for the input to H(P,P) on the basis of the actual behavior that this input actually specifies. This has been dead obvious on this basis for at least six months, yet p

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: wij

According to GUR https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/_tbCYyMox9M Your POOH is incorrect, totally garbage, nonsense.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

Abstractions are designed to cover a large number of different cases. A concrete example cannot capture an abstraction. Are you acknowledging that you haven't the foggiest idea what 'valid' means? If you're trying to say more than thi

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

So maybe yours is better. I am happy to find that you have some significant programming skill, I never knew this before.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

Good plan. You've run aground as far as halting is concerned, so you better find another topic you don't know about.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

I never said that. I am becoming an expert on the analytical foundations of knowledge and epistemology, which includes correcting the errors in the notions of analytical truth and provability.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, you are saying we need to throw out EVERYTHING we know and start over? I think, especially with the comment below, people will decide that your "new" logic systm isn't worth the cost to switch to. And what do you define truth pers

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

I guessed as much. Yet you claimed to have done better than the teams of experienced programmers who've worked on various C++ standard libraries after writing only a few lines of code? That level of delusion might lead someone to think

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

I reach my key insights by progressively refining very high level abstractions into their corresponding concrete examples. Clearly I have not yet translated this abstraction: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it t

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

Hmm.. but it's "dead obvious", isn't it?

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

Odd that you are prepared to guess. Using reserve makes no difference to the speed of either one in the only test case I have that takes long enough to measure. This is what I'd expect. The test case does 47,176,870 transitions and

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

I thought you said your were an expert at Computer Science. The deque is like a first year data structure.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

No. It isn't valid. You don't seem to grasp the concept of validity. Logic has no concept of whether, for example, the moon is made of green cheese. An argument is valid if there is no truth *assignment* under which the premises are tr

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

The details of std::deque is almost brand new to me. None-the-less my Tape_Type does seem optimal for a TM tape as long as the speed with Tape_Type::reserve() beats some and matches the rest of the speed of every operation of your std:

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

(a) The Moon is made of green cheese. (b) Water is a kind of concrete. (c) Therefore all dogs are cats. Because the premises are false and the conclusion is false it is not a case of the conclusion is true and the premises are false, th

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

As did everyone who glanced at the code for more than a few seconds. Or at least I sincerely hope they did. It's not hard to see that your code was wrong.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 9 Hours ago by: André G. Isaak

That isn't valid. Perhaps you should learn what 'valid' actually means before you attempt to "correct" the definition. [Also, the above isn't even an argument. It is simply a conditional statement. It has no conclusion]. And that dif

Re: clenise white (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 9 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Take a day off, you limp-wristed fanny-muncher.

clenise white

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Don't have a "needling your son" relapse, again. You are supposed to SUPPORT my health and improvements, not constantly addictively pivot back and bother me again and again. Grow up.

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

It categorically changes everything that is broken. {A,B} ⊢ C only when truth preserving operations are applied to {A,B} to derive C. With my correction true and unprovable is impossible, unprovable simply means untrue. An analy

Re: Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And, have you done the basic investigation to find out how much of conventional logic you invalidate with that change? Note, that it may be hard to define "necessary consequence" in a formal matter. It should be noted that your exampl

Re: Quick commentary regarding my parents... (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

Note, it's possible that I mis-read the code and it was from the bot or a coincidence; I issue the warning as something to watch for, since it is possible. It is not a definite fact, it is my suspicion. Also, Rosey likes "exchanges"; i

Quick commentary regarding my parents...

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

Since I've been trying to temper my mostly past-tense criticisms of my parents with some praise for things they did right, I should probably make sure not to inadvertently lure people into doing business with them or providing information

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Then why did YOU insist that you were correct that your implementation was "a better deque then the standard deque implementation"? This shows that you are prone to make assertions with actual "proof" that they are true, and that you a

Correcting logic to make it a system of correct reasoning

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

*Validity and Soundness* A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

The reason that I asked for review was to verify that my version of std::deque is always better. You found an exception to that claim. That exception never applies to my use of Tape_Type.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

How does it compare for speed on your test code when you use Tape_Type::reserve()?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

The std::deque stuff was a side issue. The key issue is how it performs as Tape_Type compared to your std::string method. Tape_Type::reserve() may make mine much faster for you test code.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

So your class isn't a better version of std::deque then because std::deque::pop_front() is constant time not linear. Feel free to apologize for your mistake. /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

Flibble found a case where my member functions would need to be extended and this extension may have a worse Big-O than std::deque in some cases.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

Simply extend the definition of the member function. Maybe std::deque performs better at this?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

It requires linear, O(n), complexity for that operation. Tape_Type never needs to do that.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

I have to conclusively prove my point concretely such the every single detail of my reasoning can be verified as factually correct before people will understand that I have corrected errors in some of the aspects of the basic foundatio

Brief commentary on Israel: Why it is a good reasno for atheists to

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I tend to politically support Israelis and people in the Palestinian territories, and the idea that these people should be at peace, based on ideological reasons. I realized a little while ago today though that there are ver

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Ben

You posted the code. Have you fixed it now? I've not see correct code for a deque yet. And when you've correctly implemented a deque, when you've studied the internals of std:deque, adn when you done extensive testing you can say whi

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Ben

For goodness sake, find out what a deque is and then test our code. Do you post in the hope that someone will point out all the bugs and the tell you how to fit it?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Ben

Yes, I know. You are inclined to help by pointing this out, but it's so easy to see that this class is wrong, but I hoped that PO would be inclined to find out for himself what a deque should do.

Re: olcott is a troll (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

Rational explanation 2: PO has a fundamental cognitive deficiency (I'd say PO lacks an ability to properly handle abstract concepts and reasoning), and resulting mental illness (he lives in his own delusional world). So in fact PO ful

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

The answer is restricted to elements of the set of natural numbers hence making the problem undecidable through Flibble's category error. My first example of Flibble's category error in 2004 (I didn't call it that at that time) is the

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

I will be interested to see how you account for this without introducing linear, O(n), complexity for that operation. /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But that isn't the requirements of std:deque, that you claimed you were improving on. You seem to not understand the meaning of *a requirement*

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

Oh, now I see what Ben was saying. Simply extend my definition of pop_front() to account for this.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mikko

Looks good but needs testing. Mikko

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Prove to me that you are not an idiot by explaining what happens if vector Left is empty, vector Right is non-empty and you call pop_front? Hint: as your design currently stands it will crash. /Flibble

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

And what happens if Left is empty, Right is non-empty and you call pop_front()? /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

It is correct within this design: // Tape_Type implements a two-way Turing machine tape. // Right contains Tape_Head >= 0 values (right expansion) // Left contains Tape_Head < 0 values (left expansion) // // Grows with Right.push_back

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

Prove that it doesn't.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

// Tape_Type implements a two-way Turing machine tape. // Right contains Tape_Head >= 0 values (right expansion) // Left contains Tape_Head < 0 values (left expansion) // // Grows with Right.push_back() as Tape_Head increases above 0.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

// Tape_Type implements a two-way Turing machine tape. // Right contains Tape_Head >= 0 values (right expansion) // Left contains Tape_Head < 0 values (left expansion) // // Grows with Right.push_back() as Tape_Head increases above 0.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except that you just published your "design" above. Note, pop_front() needs to remove the first item in the queue/on the tape. If all the contents of the tape are currently in the Right vector, and none are on the Left, pop_front() nee

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

They are all correct. I don't see how you can say that they are not when you don't know my design. I mere want to know that the most basic functionality of my deque is (a) simpler (b) faster (c) smaller than a std:deque. If Tape_Type.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 14 Hours ago by: Mikko

Or a proof that no such natural number exists. The definition of the halting problem cannot contradict the definition of decider. It can only contradict another definition of halting problem. Mikko

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 14 Hours ago by: Mikko

Then it is not a proof. A real proof can be verified by anyone who knows logic or mathematics. Mikko

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 14 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Even if we ignore complexity requirements and element reference stability it is still wrong: what happens if `Left` is empty, `Right` is non-empty and `pop_front` is called? It simply does not conform to the std::deque interface. /Flib

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 14 Hours ago by: Ben

Who cares? Only you. You accept, now, that you can't write a D that does what everyone but you wants: D(X,Y) == true if and only if X(Y) halts and false otherwise. You are done with halting now because you are not making any claims to

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ben

Why have you not had anything published? Everyone here knows why, but what's your opinion? You can't publish H(P,P) == false even though P(P) halts, but I leave the rest of you grand claims to others.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ben

You have not provided the correct operations, so you have no idea how hard it might be to do that. This keeps looking more and more like a distraction to put off having to do what you said. Not correct. Test first. If you added the

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ben

Correctness. This is not correct. Please read a book. Or at least write a test program and compare with std::deque.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 20 Hours ago by: tth

Not with any version of the C language.

olcott is a troll

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 20 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

olcott is a troll, it is the only rational explanation for his idiotic posts. /Flibble

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 20 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You are a fucking obtuse idiot, mate. /Flibble

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 10 Days 20 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You cannot implement all of std::deque's member functions meeting std::deque requirements using your chosen data structure of two std::vectors. /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 20 Hours ago by: Mikko

Every implementation of a deque is more complex than you need because a deque and in particular std::deque provides functionality that you don't need. They also lack functionality that you do need, forcing additional complexity elsewhere

Re: cia (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 10 Days 23 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Shut up idiot.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days ago by: olcott

The complex mess of the conventional way to implement std::deque If you get maximum (a) simplicity (b) speed and (c) minimum space what more could you want? public: tape_element& front( ) { return Left.back(); } tape_

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days ago by: Python

Could you add eggs, bacon and beans? Thanks Peter.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days ago by: olcott

I also added a reserve so you could do a pre-allocated speed test. It was easy to add these in terms of the current implementation: public: tape_element& front( ) { return Left.back(); } tape_element& back() { re

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

Which just shows Peter's problem with understanding REQUIREENTS. Apparently a LONG standing problem, since he didn't get his CS degree due to failing to meet some of the "minor" requirements. This failing colors so much of his work.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 1 Hour ago by: Ben

Better than what? There are lots of ways to implement a deque and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Of course, since you have not implemented any of the deque interface, I can't tell what method might be thinking of using. O

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

Then H is not implementing the Halting Mapping, so is NOT a Halt Decider. Only if H and H1 are not Halt Deciders, which has been proven a long time ago.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, the problems do NOT state such an impossibility. For example, machine M appied to inut w WILL Halt or Not, so its Halting property is a Truth Bearer, and thus, the Definition of the Halting Problem is NOT "incorrect" The issue i

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 1 Hour ago by: Ben

Generally, when you think I am saying something absurd, you should re-consider. A deque has (at least) these operations: front back pop_front push_front pop_back push_back Your Tape_Type has none of these. Even internally

cia

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 1 Hour ago by: B.H.

0 Do not tamper with food in my refrigerator. Also, release me at once.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

It already has the same complexity. and better referential integrity.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

All these things can be added and we end up with a simple, faster, std:deque that has most the conventional overhead and complexity abolished. It just a matter of defining more member functions.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

It is an objectively verifiable fact that the sequence of configurations specified by the input to H(P,P) is not the same as the one specified by P(P). When you have two definitions in computer science that directly contradict each ot

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ foundation of truth itself ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

All of my studies of Gödel 1931, Tarski 1936, the HP and the Liar Paradox have been concrete proxies for my study of the philosophical foundation of analytical truth. I examine these things as they fit into the whole grande scheme of

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, basicaally you are rejecting the idea that formal logic has rules. That says that your whole arguement is irrelevant for any field that says that there are rules that need to be followed. Thus, you are showing that your proof doesn

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Not with your chosen data structure of two std::vectors it can't as it wouldn't meet the complexity and referential integrity requirements offered by std::deque. I have told you this three times now. /Flibble

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

What you have does not offer what std::deque offers so is not equivalent to std::deque so can't be considered better than std::deque for the general case (I don't care about your specific use-case). /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

I think that it is a better way to implement a std::deque. It can be extended to a full deque.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, you proved that the halting function is not computable, which is exactly the claim of the Halting Theorem that you are trying to disprove. That an actual algorithmic H can't correctly handle the problem is exactly what the Halting

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say. It has the key most important functionality of a std:deque Double ended queue deque (usually pronounced like "deck") is an irregular acronym of double-ended queue. Double-ended queues are seq

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

It can't be incorrect. It's a definition. And it's based on the most natural notion: is the sequence of TM configurations finite or not. No, halting has to be based on the input. The input contains everything that specifies the sequ

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

Being an ignorant-of-the-subject person, you don't know what you are talking about. You have entered the twilight zone. What is objectively correct is based on the definition of the problem. If there are no "inputs" to H that specify

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

I could allow all elements to be popped from the front or the back too. Mine is much faster when you need far less than all elements.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

Apart from the bug/typo it's a perfectly good way to implement a TM tape. It's not a deque though.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

I've removed the philosophy group and comp.lang.c as this is C++. You will get critiques of the code on whatever basis people feel inclined to comment! You can't limit the comments to some particular context. It does not have any of

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

(ok, but I don't like the "halt because of missing rule" idea either! :) ) I'd be ok with insisting that the function is complete rather than partial. Actually, that seems mathematically most "natural" to me, but I get that it's a /pa

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Then it is totally different to what std::deque offers: std::deque allows ALL elements to be either popped from the front or back. Try reading AND UNDERSTANDING what I wrote again. /Flibble

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Mine words the same way and has the added benefit of contiguous storage. I don't think that this applies to the way that I implemented it. pop_front pops from the end of Left. pop_back pops from the end of Right. This is the key aspect

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

Not me. I believe that God intentionally put lots of bullshit in the bible so that people could learn actual spiritual discernment. I am much more ruggedly individualist than anyone else that you have ever even heard of. I always hyp

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

I see you are choosing to ignore my reply in the other thread. OK, I will repost why you are wrong here: * referential integrity and iterator invalidation are different things: when you add or remove elements to either end of a

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

It is faster then std::deque. I couldn't find what you mean by referential integrity it has too many different meanings. invalidating iterators seemed to be what you mean otherwise I have no idea.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Good catch. I just wrote that function as a simplification.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

I proved that the criteria for halting is objectively incorrect. It requires a decider to base its decision on a non-input thus directly contradicting the definition of a decider thus making the requirement itself incorrect. My H concl

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You have a nerve, mate, being a Christian by-the-book (Bible) person you also hold those negative traits. Christianity is the largest groupthink of them all. /Flibble

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to std::deque (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Looks at what indexing with an index value of 0 does. Operator [] want to test index >= 0, not > 0

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Its done see my new post.

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Because it doesn't meet the complexity and referential integrity requirements of std::deque. /Flibble

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Being a learned-by-rote by-the-book person anything that goes against the book must be wrong because the book establishes the conventional view. This view is generally locked into academia by groupthink. https://www.psychologytoday.com/

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The two views, Halting ONLY in "Final States" or Halting in any state that doesn't have a Rule defined for the current tape character are really equivalent (unless you are doing Turing Machine Golf, where the "size" of the machine is i

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

From your description you are not implementing a deque at all, though as I say, using two arrays is one well-known way to do that. If you decide to make it an actual deque, what will it be faster, smaller, cleaner and simpler than? Sur

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The input to embedded_H only specifies infinitely nested simulations if H is designed to NEVER abort its simulation of this input, and if this is true, then H will not return an answer to H <H^> <H^> because it too will get stuck in th

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

I didn't see any reason why it would not make a better std::deque.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

<cut various errors> You made lots of point. Many of them wrong. I pointed out some of the errors. But since you are now unashamedly admitting to using an adapted criterion for halting, is there any point in carrying on?

Re: Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

It might be a more appropriate solution than std::deque for your specific use-case however it is NOT an improvement to std::deque for the general case -- see my reply in the other thread for why. /Flibble

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

No pair of pointers has a halt status -- a fact I think you are aware of since you appear to using this silly mantra to hide your key problem: H gives the wrong answer as far as everyone but you is concerned. In the context of H, what h

Implementing a two-way Turing Machine tape as an improvement to

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

C/C++ people please critique this as the basis for an improvement to std::deque. It seems to have the key functionality of std::deque and does it much more simply while saving time and space. https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/deque/dequ

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Key words, "Unless their simulation is aborted", which, since H has been show to actually abort the simulation, means that DOES happen, so H has no proof that it was CORRECT to abort the simulation. H can say that if it was programmed

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You proofs are incorrect, and unsound, just as YOU are.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except this pattern you are matching is flawed. The normal (and correct) rule requires that no conditional be in the loop, and since H IS conditional in its execution of P, you do not match a CORRECT infinite recursion pattern. (That

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 6 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You are wrong on both counts: * referential integrity and iterator invalidation are different things: when you add or remove elements to either end of a std::deque iterators are indeed invalidated however references to existin

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

It has the same Big-O complexity (with less overhead) As far as referential integrity std::deque does not do very well. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/iterator-invalidation-cpp/

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

I am implementing a faster, smaller, cleaner, and simpler std::deque I hate to define code that is sub-optimal. It has all of these features of a std::deque deque (usually pronounced like "deck") is an irregular acronym of double-ende

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 6 Hours ago by: Ben

How complicated are you making it? The two functions that would clear up, once and for all, what you are really doing should be only a two or three lines. I see. So you are not using two stacks. And what you are implementing is not

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 7 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You cannot meet the complexity and element referential integrity guarantees that std::deque offers with a pair of std::vectors. You are obviously a C++ n00b. /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

The Tape_Type is almost done. It is ideal for a two-way TM tape. It has the key benefit of being able to grow on both ends. Unlike the messy overhead of the conventional std::deque implementation it has all of the efficiently of std:ve

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]( will keep repeating until understood ) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 7 Hours ago by: Ben

And you are determined to prevent anyone else from knowing it by (a) hiding the code, and (b) publishing traces that don't show it. Show the code or it didn't happen. Yet, as I said, you have not been published, and you remain unheard

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 7 Hours ago by: Ben

Not even the two tape movement functions? A bit of programming is always fun. This is ambiguous. It is easy to find an improvement over how std::deque /could/ be implemented (since it /could/ be implemented badly), but, on the other

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

My only point is that the input to embedded_H does specifies infinitely nested simulation contradicting Flibble's claim that it does not, thus my H(P,P) is equivalent to embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 7 Hours ago by: Ben

H is no longer a halt decider. This not Linz's Ĥ. Linz's H leads to a contradiction because of how H and the "hat" construction are defined. Using a different "hat" construction, and an "adapted" halt criterion, means you are not ad

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 8 Hours ago by: olcott

This is what I am going by: The Turing machine halts if it is in a state for which there is no quintuple telling it what to do for the symbol being read. The Turing machine is said to 'halt in a final state' if there is no quintuple at

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: Ben

When reasoning about termination, you have to consider halting in non-final states, so I don't think it matters much. The logic here that you have to consider the one case anyway (halting because of no defined transition) and the seco

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

There is no point detecting infinite cycles as there is no infinite recursion in the halting problem proofs you are trying to refute. /Flibble

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of the Linz Turing machine Ĥ. There is no need for the infinite loop after H.qy because it is never reached. The halting criteria has been adapted so that it applies to a simulat

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

From a programming perspective, I can see how that's a bit more convenient, but I don't like the idea that much - e.g. with an explicit halt state we can see it clearly on the state transition diagram (as one of the destination circles

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Only your simulation contains an infinite recursion due to a category error ON YOUR PART. Your category error is proof that your simulation-based proof is in error. /Flibble

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

My proofs prove that they do. That you fail to comprehend this is no rebuttal at all.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

I am not talking about your braindead simulation, I am talking about the halting problem proofs you are trying to refute: THEY DO NOT HAVE AN INFINITE RECURSION. /Flibble

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

This has been disproven in that you did not see this:

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

My x86utm operating system operates exclusively on a compiled Microsoft COFF object rile that has already been compiled.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 9 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

(a) I have been a software developer/engineer since 1993 and am able to recognize infinite recursion and additionally, and more importantly, a lack of infinite recursion. (b) I have been familiar with x86 assembly since before 1993 (c) I

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Indeed its own machine code is a representation of its own source code so is valid to pass to a decider HOWEVER you ignored the second part of my assertion: "pass its own source" is NOT the same as compiling *AND RUNNING* its own source

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

I have it almost done. I staid up late working on it. I got very enthused. This is lots of fun. It is also essentially basically a significant improvement to how std::deque could be implemented.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 13 Hours ago by: Ben

Though one used to talk about "transducer" DFAs where each edge of the graph also had an output symbol. This was not "written" anywhere but the result was the concatenation of output after processing the input. This is, as you say, ty

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 13 Hours ago by: Ben

For just the tape? Surely not. I wanted to resolve what data structure you are actually gong to be using. So may be another 12 days. Oh well, I'll see if I can apply the "tying the knot" trick to my Haskell code...

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 21 Hours ago by: olcott

I am basically making a std::deque based on std::vector that has all of the speed and space efficiency of std::vector and the functionality of std::deque. This provides the basis for a two-way TM tape.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 22 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

Right. And by allocating these blocks in multiples of the page (least common multiple of swap page and cache page size), you'll keep the caches full of the right stuff. The time overhead is that you must check if the +1 or -1 positioni

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 11 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

These are the key details of the trasition function that I have been focusing on: A transition rule of a Turing machine has the following form δ(p, X) = (q, Y, L). This means that from state p, on reading the symbol X on the tape,

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days ago by: olcott

I think that I already knew all that stuff. I have two patents on DFA's so I know them well. They match screen pixels to recognized characters. The second patent is a patentable memory optimization of the first. I only got an very detai

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Except they DO. There are conditional branches, that contain the capability to break the "infinite loop", and in fact which WILL break the infinite loop of the outer simulator does. Thus, the "rule" that the outer simulator is using i

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days ago by: Mike Terry

Yes the idea is the same but slightly more complicated. What seems not to be working that way? You could think of a TM as a DFA that's been functionally enhanced to allow at each computation step i) left/right (single) stepping of its

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days ago by: Richard Damon

But you violate the "bounds" of that string when you follow the call H instruction. Nope. UNSOUND Logic. Sum is DEFINED to return the sum of the numbers given as its input. H,(P,P) if it is a Halt Decider, is DEFINED to return and

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days ago by: olcott

Less than 8 labor hours, maybe 2 labor hours. I only work on it for 5 minutes every 2 hours.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days ago by: olcott

I wrote it and it was the very most difficult part to write and thus I know for a fact that it is. The trace is the trace of the input to H(P,P) does not bother to display of the 236 pages of execution trace of H performing a pure sim

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

This is such a nutty thing to say when you already know that strings are always passed in C as char* pointers. I am passing strings of machine code as pointers, this is the normal correct way to do this. int sim(int N, int M) { re

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 1 Hour ago by: Richard Damon

Clearly you don't understand what was being talked about in the "two stack" method, as the Tape Head is always the last element of a specifed vector (I beleive traditionally the right). Moving to the left is just taking the last eleme

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 1 Hour ago by: Ben

How long is that going to take?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

struct Tape { unsigned int Tape_Head; std::vector<unsigned char> Left; std::vector<unsigned char> Right; unsigned int move_left(); unsigned int move_right(); }; The part of mapping Tape_Head to a location in Left or Right

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

No, I said it is not a nested simulation -- i.e. a simulation of a function that then simulates a simulation and so on. It clearly isn't. The trace is not a trace of what you claim your H is doing. That's why you are hiding H and why y

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

The "inputs" to H are two pointers. They have no halt status. What H(X,Y) must correctly report on is the halting or otherwise of the function call X(Y). Your H does not do the job it is supposed to do. You are correct that the proo

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And those that are see it to be the lie that it is. I really don't think YOU understand the material to the level you claim is needed. Only key is that you confuse the PROGRAM P with the SUBROUTINE P. The finite string is NOT a defin

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

That's not what a stack is. Mind you, your writing is poor in that Right and Left don't access themselves so I have had to guess what you mean: possibly "the elements of Left are accessed from back to front" (and analogous wording for

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it is clear that the traces you are posting aren't corerct as P calls H and then H simulates its input, but we NEVER see that simulation happening, only another call to P. You have presented ZERO proof that you actually HAVE a simu

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, a Halt Decider must report the Halting Status of the Machine the input represents. Thus P,P is ALWAYS the same computation for a Halting Decider. The fact that your H and H1 give different answer just proves that they aren't Hal

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

I normally have that debug info disabled so it need not be edited. You needed to see that it really is recursive simulation (because you didn't believe me) so I left these details in. That is a ridiculously stupid thing to say when it

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

A halt decider must only correctly report on the halt status of its inputs. H(P,P)==0 and H1(P,P)==1 both do that correctly. The HP proof tries to show an input that H gets wrong. The proof no longer works on my H.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

The whole exchange is ridiculous. You post traces you now admit are edited. You won't post the code for H because you know it's wrong. All the rest of your posts are just frantic attempts to take the focus away from the facts you have

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

YOU IGNORED THIS PART This proof can only be understood only by those having sufficient technical competence in: (a) software engineering - recognizing infinite recursion in C/x86 (b) the x86 programming language (c) the C programming l

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ](V2) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

There are no arguments that can be passed to H so that H can correctly report on the halting of the function call P(P). H falls at the first hurdle: being able to decide the halting of specific function calls.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

It is more cost-effective to make it right the first time rather than have to go back and fix it. My adaptation of David's approach to the TM tape also seems to be an objectively better way to implement std::deque. I can't possibly do

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, is the following execution now UNCONDITIONAL, or is there an implied condition between each instruction as the simulator decides if it is going to continue. Note, that the operation of converting a trace of a simulation into a tra

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except that this fails!! The x86 code shows that P calls H. The simulation doesn't but seems to act like a call to H is just a call to P. Even if you edit out the 'setup' code in H, unless H just calls P (and not simulates it) the tr

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

Yes, for a fixed block length it will be like a tape element linked list, but only some small fraction of the allocation overhead. Bigger blocks resulting in a smaller fraction. Or we could have some kind of exponential block size gro

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

It is only two stacks in the sense that Left accesses its elements from back to front. Since Right accesses its elements from front to back only Left is like a stack.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 5 Hours ago by: Ben

That may well be the case. But your way is not the "two stacks" way if there is no need for pop.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

The actual run-time cost issue is not copying data, this is fairly cheap. A linear growth factor has far many more very expensive operating system memory allocation calls than an exponential growth factor.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 12 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

That is utter nonsense. We can see that H(P,P) does execute a pure simulation of its input on the basis of the execution trace of P (up to the point where P would call H a second time from its same machine address with identical parame

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 6 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

I was thinking that the chained block degenerates into effectively a linked list when block size becomes small in relation to tape length. However that isn't really a problem - it still works more effectively than a contiguous model.

Is Joe Biden planning a right-wing extremist math camp to train kids?

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 6 Hours ago by: B.H.

If he is, I can tell you with "pretty good confidence" though not total certainty, as someone who knows what goes into "a successful math education" in some cases at least, that this plot will fail. I've said before: "Logic eludes the un

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

I think that my way is more efficient. I will post it as soon as it is done.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 7 Hours ago by: Ben

You trace clearly and accurately shows that what you call the "simulation of the input" is wrong. H(P,P) == false is wrong because P(P) halts. H is supposed to be able to tell us which calls terminate and which ones won't. Your H is w

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 7 Hours ago by: Ben

You are admitting you are posting edited traces? Who would have guessed that! Are you still editing them? There's still no evidence of nested simulation. The correct simulation of P(P) halts. No one cares about H1. It's H that's

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

You still don't understand the two stack method. Here is a sketch of how it's done. The reason it's efficient (in so far as it is) is that the tape move is simply: if (go_right) left.push(right.pop()); else right

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 8 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Your simulation approach is erroneous as there is no infinite recursion; the key to understanding this is by realizing the implication of the words "pass its own source" in the following: For any program f that might determine if progra

Re: So, this sounds like bad news.... (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

Note, "lots of people" in this case means "over 7 billion people." A small, non-full-scale economy, or a small contrived game like a prisoner's dilemma or game of chicken, would obey different rules. This is not a well-timed gesture, un

So, this sounds like bad news....

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/palestinian-american-journalist-shot-dead-in-israeli-raid-in-west-bank-al-jazeera-says-125325445.html I'm not "launching any numerical signals" now, partly because I'm done doing service and partly because I am

Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 12 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] The x86utm operating system was created so that every detail of the conventional halting problem counter example could be fully specified in C/x86. In computab

Economics Commentary: The Philosophy of Employment

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, Here are some quick thoughts on being employed that I just thought of. The key idea is: There are three things that can help you get better at a job or skill, just like getting better at playing chess (I've gotten much bett

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

So you don't understand DK/Ben's two stack approach, and you don't understand the chained blocks approach. I could ask "what empirical testing?" but that would just be a waste of time, so I won't... Anyway, none of that matters - just

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

The exponential growth rate factor of std::vector seems to be a more efficient tradeoff of space versus time and does not have the extra (space/time) overhead of multiple levels of reference. The fastest output devices are still enorm

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

The specified Tape_Head increments/decrements for move_right/move_left. The tricky part of this is mapping this to integer subscripts of Left/Right when both Left/Right can dynamically grow in size.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 12 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

I don't get why you say a chained block approach doesn't scale up. Such a design works well until the logical (user) address space is filled, which is absolutely huge on a modern 64-bit machine with page files etc.. When the tape gets

Unscheduled, likely potent publication of an important idea

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 12 Hours ago by: B.H.

Idea description: "I am an NDTM, stating a password to a room full of NDTMs." Citation keyword: "maturity" Citation keyword processing: "a senior job seeker, with the intent and capability to both perform the job and please a certain co

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 12 Hours ago by: Mike Terry

Then you've not understood DK and Ben's approach, like I said. Your replies are typical of you not reading what people write, or simply not understanding what they've written. Do you know what a stack is? So, tell us what how Tape_He

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

Here is the same trace that also shows the recursive simulation memory allocations. I erase them because they are distracting. _main() [00001372](01) 55 push ebp [00001373](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001375](05)

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

If you had the technical skill you could verify that it is 100% impossible for there to be anything wrong with the code on the basis of that of the verifiably correct execution trace that it derives. In other words you simply don't hav

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

No need for the pop operation. That is simply factually incorrect with my implementation of David Kleinecke's double stack based std::deque applied to a doubled ended TM tape.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 13 Hours ago by: olcott

I prefer the exponential memory allocation of std:vector. It seems to be the optimal balance between speed and memory use. My implementation of David Kleinecke's double stack based std::deque will allow std::deque::push_front() to work e

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 14 Hours ago by: Ben

You won't even correct a trivial point. Don't you want to know what's wrong with your code? Your trace shows that you are not even nesting any simulations so that's one error right there. But there are clearly others. Are you retra

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 14 Hours ago by: Ben

Even talking about code you won't address the points made -- you just assert something equally wrong. I won't repeat what I said. Address it if you like or not.

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 12 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, it is verifiably INCORRECT for one with even a tiny bit of skill. Nope, the trace proves you are LYING about actually simulating the input. Trace breaks here. A CORRECT Trace would now trace the operation of the copy of H that P

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 12 Days 18 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

The tape is unbounded. And even some very simple machines will fill it up to infinity. If you stop the machine when the process runs out of memory, which is a reasonable strategy, you don't want O(N) tape write operations. Chained blocks

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 12 Days 22 Hours ago by: olcott

(a) The trace is verifiably correct if one has the technical skill. (b) The trace is proved non-halting if one has the technical skill. You simply don't seem to have the technical skill. I PUT BACK IN THE MANDATORY DETAILS THAT PROVE MY

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days ago by: olcott

The current Tape_Head maps to elements of Left or Right or to an element before Left or after Right.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days ago by: Ben

You can certainly use a std::vector as a stack but I'd derive my own stack from a vector so as to make it infinitely "popable" with the pop operation returning the tape's blank symbol. This looks odd. If you use the two stacks approac

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS8xMC8yMDIyIDY6NDMgUE0sIG9sY290dCB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gNS8xMC8yMDIyIDEy OjU2IFBNLCBKZWZmIEJhcm5ldHQgd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiA1LzEwLzIwMjIgOTo0MSBBTSwg QmVuIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+IG9sY290dCA8Tm9PbmVATm9XaGVyZS5jb20+IHdyaXRlczoNCj4+ Pg0KPj4+PiBPbiA1LzEwL

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

Not in the least little bit. Please wait until you see my full implementation before passing judgement. David's solution is optimal. My implementation of David's solution essentially redefines the whole notion of std::deque with std:v

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

std::vector essentially <is> a stack. I consider your solution optimal. Here is the first part of its implementation: struct Tape { unsigned int Tape_Head; std::vector<unsigned char> Left; std::vector<unsigned char> Right;

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 1 Hour ago by: Mike Terry

I think you've misunderstood DK's and Ben's approaches. I think what you're suggesting is that Left handles all the "negative" tape head positions, and Right all the "positive" ones, while Tape_Head contains the tape head index (positi

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

std::vector <is> essentially a stack. struct Tape { unsigned int Tape_Head; std::vector<unsigned char> Left; std::vector<unsigned char> Right; unsigned int move_left(); unsigned int move_right(); }; Tape_Head is mapped to

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

David kleinecke's solution is a much more efficient and simpler way to implement push_back() and push_front() than std::deque that also has none of the pitfalls such as: https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/deque/deque/push_front/ All

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

I've tried both (two stacks and two stacks and a cell) and I think the extra cell just makes it a bit fussy. If you have an array of two stacks: stack<symbol> tape[2]; and 'dir' is the move direction as 0 or 1, then tape[dir].pus

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

David kleinecke's solution is a much more efficient and simpler way to implement push_back() and push_front() than std::deque that also has none of the pitfalls such as: https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/deque/deque/push_front/ All i

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

You have convinced me that this is the best way I am going to implement this using David kleinecke's solution. It is a much more efficient and simpler way to implement push_back() and push_front() than std::deque that also has none of

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

This is the best idea yet. I spent all day researching this on my cell phone during chemotherapy infusion. I am implemented this idea in code and will post it as another reply to your message.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ][ proof that I am correct ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Which fails,. P calls H, so the trace actually needs to show what H does. It then shows a trace as if H actualls CALL P, which if it does, it can't abort the operation, so is obviously incorrect. Since the execution trace is OBVIOUSLY

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

I'm sure that's true. std::string /could/ be made fast for inserts at position 0 (there is no push_front for a string) but I doubt that case has been optimised. But very long tapes will be rare though. And for them to occur there has

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 8 Hours ago by: dklei...@gmail.com

If you are not actually implementing a machine replacing the tape by a pair of stacks is attractive. Actually you replace the tape by three things - two stacks (called for example left and right) and a single focus cell. But none

Re: Conditional financial incentive offer: $1 million for getting me (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

(By "get me out of here" I mean "end the restriction on me communicating and get rid of the bot.")

Conditional financial incentive offer: $1 million for getting me out

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, In a previous post, I said I would pay $1000 for emails...I forgot the exact details of the post, but I will honor it...it's contingent on me having a certain amount of money. Clearly, I'm very motivated to get out of here

Re: Microsoft Office Competitor Products: Desktop Excel-and-Word-Type (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 9 Hours ago by: B.H.

I forgot to mention two things: 1) I have good natural language processing ideas that are still under development--nothing has been implemented or tested yet. 2) I would allow users to react, including with ratings, to spreadsheets an

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 9 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

std::string (or std::vector) will likely win for small N and std::deque for large N as far as push_front is concerned. /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 9 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

One possibility is to use a linked list where each node contains a character, a pointer to the following node, and a pointer to the previous node. Since the TM can only move one tape square per state transition, the cache will do a goo

I'm feeling better at night!

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

A pleasant comment about my mood: I haven't had the "unsettled feeling" at night since the evening of May 7, i.e., I felt fine on May 7th at night and I have felt at night since then. The key was that at this point, I can go to bed withi

Update on Innovative Activities: Game Theory Software

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I have another big idea about software that I could sell to businesses. The idea is game theory software. I haven't worked out all of the features, but one big idea is to allow different ways of modeling games--including as

Microsoft Office Competitor Products: Desktop Excel-and-Word-Type

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 10 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I just thought of two great new products...as I wrote above, I want to build Desktop applications that do word processing and database/spreadsheet management, with the extra features, as an AI-entry point to allow me to comp

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 11 Hours ago by: Ben

P called with what argument? I assume P. Something is wrong in your code if P(P), or a simulation of P(P), does not halt, since you told us that it does. Post the code and someone will help you find the bug. Unless you are retracti

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 11 Hours ago by: Ben

I think everyone here knows that. Using std::deque was suggested before (by Jeff I think), but at nearly 200 million steps a second, I didn't think there was much room for a speed-up. I've just tried it, and using std::deque rather tha

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 11 Hours ago by: wij

Even now, you know how to copy/paste. You don't seem to understand logic.

Re: H(P,P)==false is proven to be correct (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 12 Hours ago by: wij

I have replied with the major problem of your rebuttal in another post: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/GajNoV6CAz4 I.e. no H, no rebuttal. All in your paper has no effect to the HP proof. The second one: The real P is a test p

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 12 Hours ago by: wij

Many problems. Pick the major one: P is invalid, because your halting decider H is not shown to exist (there is another reason). You can say H(..) comprises of several million lines of source codes. But this does not matter because this i

Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 13 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott

(a) Verify that the execution trace of P by H is correct by comparing this execution trace to the ax86 source-code of P. (b) Verify that this execution trace shows that P is stuck in infinitely nested simulation (a non-halting behavior).

Re: Crossword filling (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 15 Hours ago by: Julio Di Egidio

Thanks very much, appreciated! Julio

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ][ proof that I am correct ] (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 13 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott

(a) Verify that the execution trace of P by H is correct by comparing this execution trace to the ax86 source-code of P. (b) Verify that this execution trace shows that P is stuck in infinitely nested simulation (a non-halting behavior

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Yes, but they are arguing about what works efficiently. deque is designed for this, so both are likely reasonably efficient, though all extentions that need a realloc to the front will need a move, while some realloction to the end won

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/deque push_back adds an element to the end push_front inserts an element to the beginning

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 15 Hours ago by: olcott

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/deque push_back adds an element to the end push_front inserts an element to the beginning

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ben

I meant for the theory of such machines. It's the theory and the theorems that will dictate which style an authors chooses and there's no down-side in that context. If you do the resizing right, the same is true of push_front(). Eve

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 16 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

There's a technical downside if you implement the tape in the obvious way, as a dynamic buffer. Most languages make it quite fast to append characters to the buffer's end. There's usually spare memory there in the system, so the push_back

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 17 Hours ago by: Ben

There is no such concept for a Turing machine. The TM can be defined to halt in this situation (though I don't know any authors who specify it like that) but halting is halting no matter the reason. Why extend the vector if you've ter

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 17 Hours ago by: Ben

"the accepted or traditional method of doing something" I don't know. I know it's not a widely agreed convention, but what it "typical" is hard to assess. I think double-open is more commonly used in modern presentations, but the o

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 20 Hours ago by: Mikko

So now you have retracted your Mikko

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 20 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

As a mathematical model, a tape which is open at both ends is simpler. If you are engineering a physical machine, a tape which extends arbitrarily in only one direction may well be easier to implement. As you say, it's easier to draw the

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 23 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Let's test that. Code up Ha3(N,5). You'll find that the execution trace provided by Ha3 exactly matches the behavior specified by the x86 source code of N. So then according to you, by your criteria of a correct simulation, Ha3(N,5) ==

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 13 Days 23 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You can't stipu;ate that your answer is correct. The actual affect of that sipulation is that your H never halts (if you use the actual Halting Property as your criteria) since if H aborts its simulation and says non-halting the input

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Actually, I see unlimited in both directions as more normal, otherwise you get the odd case of what happens if the system tries to move past the end of the tape. It basically says you need a special character for that end of the tape,

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days ago by: olcott

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. That you are unwilling do do this proves your insincerity.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 1 Hour ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS85LzIwMjIgNDozNiBQTSwgb2xjb3R0IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBPbiA1LzkvMjAyMiA1OjEy IFBNLCBKZWZmIEJhcm5ldHQgd3JvdGU6DQo+PiBPbiA1LzkvMjAyMiAzOjE5IFBNLCBvbGNv dHQgd3JvdGU6DQo+Pg0KPj4gU05JUA0KPj4NCj4+Pj4gU28gaW4gb3RoZXIgd29yZHMsIHRo ZSBmaXhlZCBhbGdvcml0a

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

(a) Abnormal termination error index out-of-bounds. (b) Extend the std::vector.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

How would you define conventional? The most typical use is one way unlimited, right?

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

The definition is simpler if the tape in unbounded at both ends. If you are going to use any of the BB candidates as tests, you need a tape open at both ends. Given that you've gone for a one-ended tape, what rule do you apply when the

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

The truth is that this is one area where different models of Turing Machines define the tape differently. Just like some allow for multiple tapes (and thus multiple "tape op" fields in the instruction, and multiple tape symbols in the

Re: H(P,P)==false is proven to be correct (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, the UTM is a totally seperate computation. Where do you see put a UTM in the place of copies of the decider while simulating the input? (or words to that effect) You just run a UTM on the input as an independent computation to ve

Re: Next move (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But, if the statement can be shown to be a Truth bearer, then if it is not true in MUST be false. The statement "Machine M given input w Halts?", IS a Truth Bearer, as it will either Halt, or it won't, there is not possible middle grou

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Maybe H needs to base its decision on that, but the correct answer is based on the simulation/execution of the ACTUAL machine the input represents. If it is impossible for H to deduce that behavior, that just shows that it is impossib

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

You have WASTED 15,000 hours on this. You are committing the category error, and are just wrong.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except as I showed Flibble, there isn't actually infinite recursion in the definition, just in that particular design of H, which shows that that design fails, not the problem is invalid.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

None of these authors say what is "conventional". What is certain is that if there were a convention, an author not using that convention should say as much. You'll find, however, that that is not the case.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Which just shows that H1 can get the right answer for P(P), so H is just wrong to say it doesn't Halt.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except it doesn't. H needs to get the right answer for H^ applied to <H^> or its equivalent. Your H doesn't. it seems you H can't even be given the needed question. So, you FAIL. All you have shown is you don't know what the Halting P

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except we don't apply the "string" H to the input P, we apply the PROGRAM H to the string P And if you are only looking at the behavior of H when applied to the string P, you aren't talking about the Halting of P, but of H. And then

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, you are using incorrect logic. Yes, H can prove that if all copies of H never abort their simulation of the input, then P would be non-halting, but that doesn't mean that if all copies of H do abort their simulation of the input

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

But to talk about a specific P you need to talk about a specific H with a fixed algorithm. And since Ha aborts, Ha(Pa,Pa) == false is wrong because Pa(Pa) halts. It doesn't matter what some other H or some other P does. You seem to be

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

And the following is INCORRECT unless H just call/jumps to P, and thus is unable to abort its "simulation" of it. Which is then contradicted by this, so the trace is just incorrect. Nope. Not in this context when the function it call

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: wij

You choose to refute the conventional HP, and says that there is no need to show the hundreds of pages of H...,etc. How do you expect the reviewer/the world to verify POOH (a claim?) by 'claim'? Invalid claim. Because H is not shown to

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Which just shows your system might not be Turing Complete, so totally invalid for the proof.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Which when run has undefined behavior as it calls an uninitialzed memory location. You don't seem to actually understand x86 asssembly.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No it doesn't, not for the *PROGRAM* P, which is what H is supposed to be taking in. SO you ADMIT that the input isn't actually the representation of P(P)? But if it isn't representing P(P), then WHO CARES!! We are interested in see

Re: H(P,P)==false is proven to be correct (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

This is Pn, which is a completely different computation from Pa. We know than Pn(Pn) does not halt, and that fact is unrelated to Pa(Pa). Yes, Pn(Pn) does not halt, and Ha can correctly detect that, but that's not the case we care abou

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

There is no need to show the hundreds of pages of source code for H (including the open source x86 emulator) or the hundreds of pages of execution trace of H because it is easily verified that: H(P,P) correctly emulates its input on th

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

So, is the implication that if x is a cat then x is an animal isn't true because my actual x is a office building, so an office building is NOT a cat (!p), and an office building is NOT an animal (!q), so I guess you can't say that "if

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: wij

"it" does not exist. Show your POOH. To refute HP, a H has to exist to refute. If H does not exist, no real rebuttal exist.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

But the key is that just because they are valid Prolog, doesn't mean they aren't valid logic in a more powerful logic system. If you want to limit the logic you use to just what Prolog offers, fine, but realize that you are leaving a L

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

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

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

I am only talking about the actual behavior of the literal string H and H1 applied to the literal string P. If you talk about anything else you are talking to yourself and not me. The literal string H could have hypothetically been def

A comment regarding academic journal submission.

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: B.H.

It occurred to me that my ability to get attention and access from investors, etc., might be limited by my one incorrect academic journal submission in the past. To defend myself: 1) I think I was "bait sabotaged" by former MIT graduat

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: wij

This is not H (a halting decider). 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.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

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)

Re: H(P,P)==false is proven to be correct (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

void P(u32 x) { if (x86_emulate(x, x)) HERE: goto HERE; return; } int main() { Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P)); } Yet the UTM must be embedded at the same place where H would be embedded. The above P would ne

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Pa doesn't call itself. It calls Ha which simulates Pa, and the simulation performed by Ha *will* abort. There is no "if it doesn't abort" because then you're talking about Pn instead of Pa. Because Pa contains a copy of Ha, you can't

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: wij

"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?

Re: H(P,P)==false is proven to be correct (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

And for a halt decider H(P,P), the specified property *by definition* is the behavior of P(P) Which by *the definition of the problem*, for a halt decider H(P,P), that property is the behavior of P(P) And the correct simulation of the

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 4 Hours ago by: olcott

Sipser and Kozen agree with me, Linz agrees with you.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

It is already stipulated (and verifiable) that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input until it aborts the emulation of this input. We can verify that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input on the basis that the execution trace provided by H

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: wij

Sorry, I don't think anyone had ever seen one. Before your H is shown to exist for the test, your argument is void.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Linz agrees with you, Kozen agrees with me and I can't find where Sipser specifies this.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Infinitely nested simulation matches the infinite recursion infinite behavior pattern. If H verified that the function that P calls is itself then H could distinguish the difference. It need not do this infinite behavior is all that it

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

I provide all of the details proving that this H does exist.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: Ben

No.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS85LzIwMjIgMzoxOSBQTSwgb2xjb3R0IHdyb3RlOg0KDQpTTklQDQoNCj4+IFNvIGlu IG90aGVyIHdvcmRzLCB0aGUgZml4ZWQgYWxnb3JpdGhtIG9mIEggbG9va3MgZm9yIHdoYXQg aXQgdGhpbmtzIA0KPj4gaXMgaW5maW5pdGUgc2ltdWxhdGlvbi7CoCBTbyBIIGlzIEhhLCB3 aGljaCBtZWFucyBQIGlzI

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: Ben

In the usual definition the tape has no beginning so I can't make out what you are saying here. Something about it is wrong but I tell exactly what.

H(P,P)==false is proven to be correct (thread)

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Now we are getting into nuances of meaning that are not commonly known. It must do so in the basis of a property specified by its input finite string. For example a decider that decides whether or not its input has a string length > 2

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: wij

Your coding is invalid, because H is not shown to exist (call what or who?).

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 5 Hours ago by: wij

Your coding is invalid, because H is now shown to exist.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

First, it's not recursion, infinite or otherwise. It's nested simulation, and the conditions that are part of the simulation are relevant. And it's not infinite nested simulation because Hb simulates Pa past the point where Ha aborts, s

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

There is by the definition of the problem. You mean this definition of a decider? https://cs.stackexchange.com/a/84440 The one you "always accepted ... as the best one"? All this says is that a decider maps input to accept/reject. I

Innovation Update: A new idea for classrooms.

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, Here is another innovation idea update: I have thought of the idea of a "remote blackboad/whiteboard writing tool" that could make group classroom participation, in the context of multiple students writing on the blackboard/

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== ======== ========= ============....[000009d6][00211368][0021136c]

poster posting as "heywood jablome"

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Go away and stop stalking me. I express myself quite clearly; if your trick is to present me in a way that I do not see myself and might be more aptly applied to you, description-wise, then you should know that I know that trick and us

Innovation Update: Another New Idea

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I have another EE idea to share: This one is a device that would watch your facial expression gestures--it might float in front you as you walk around, if that is what you as a user select as an option--and try to monitor yo

Re: cvs (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: Heywood Jablome

Take a day off you incomprehensible twatwaffle.

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

No not at all. There is no (indirect reference) of "representation" to it. The input is a literal string that precisely specifies a sequence of configurations. In this case it is x86 machine code. No not at all. There is no (indirect

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

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

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: olcott

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

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: wij

The HP (eventually) asks for fact to refute, not any logic or theory. No real H, no rebuttal.

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 6 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

And for the halting function, the property of the inputs is the representation of a turning machine and the input to that machine And by definition, the actual behavior specified by the actual inputs is the behavior of the turing machin

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 7 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

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*

cvs

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 7 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 Cut it out. I will can the satirical insult, even though I'm under duress and you're harassing me; indeed, if the police were called on either of us, it would be a likely highly prejudiced VA court that would hear the case against you/

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

All deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept/reject state on the basis of a property of these inputs thus All halt deciders must compute the mapping from their inputs to an accept/reject state on the basis of a

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 7 Hours ago by: olcott

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: 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840f

Papers

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 8 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

DUDE What the fuck're you talking about? The carrier. What's in the fucking carrier? WALTER Huh? Oh--Cynthia's Pomeranian. Can't leave him home alone or he eats the furniture. DUDE What the fuck are you--

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 9 Hours ago by: wij

Any halting decider is shown/proved not able to return a correct answer. After so long, you still do not have and show us your POOH that can pass the the test of the convention HP proof. My GUR is more abstract which includes what the H

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

According to my proof GUR is wrong. You have to actually read it to see this.

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 9 Hours ago by: wij

According to GUR, your proof is wrong: GUR says "No TM U can decide the property of a TM P if that property can be defied by TM P."

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

I have proven otherwise: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

Re: Next move (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

Although category error does not apply to the HP it does apply to Gödel(1931), Tarski(1936) the Liar Paradox and possibly Russell's Paradox.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 9 Hours ago by: olcott

Since I proved that there is infinite recursion since 2016 your retraction that there is no infinite recursion is simply incorrect.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

I spent 15,000 hours on this since 2004, all of my messages are still in this group. I have known more about this since you first began, and I know more about that after your retraction. The idea of category error applied to instances

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Have you not read my retraction? I was in error: there is no infinite recursion. Simulation is an erroneous approach. /Flibble

Re: Next move (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Did you not read my retraction? I was in error: there is no category error as there is no infinite recursion. /Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Have you not read my retraction? I was in error: there is no infinite recursion. /Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Have you not read my retraction? I was in error: there is no infinite recursion. /Flibble

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

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. Ha(Pa,Pa) returns false because it *thinks* the

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

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).

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

Logical implication p q p ⇒ q T T T T F F F T T F F T The forth row is not truth preserving.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

He discussed category error, I provided an example of a category error.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

Prolog is not invalid. Prolog is able to detect expressions of the Prolog language that are invalid using unify_with_occurs_check.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mikko

You forgot: an expression is true if it is a tautology. E.g., a sentence of the form (A ∧ (A → B)) → B is true. Mikko

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

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. Just because: H1(P1,P1) == false H2(P2,P2) == false H3(P

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mikko

Irrelevant as Mr Flibble did not discuss questions. Mikko

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: Mikko

Yes, you did. See above. Mikko

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 10 Hours ago by: olcott

I am only talking about H(P,P) and H1(P,P) where P is this literal string as x86 machine language: 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3 Any replies diverging from this will simply be ignored without comment as attempt

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

It turns out that it was never erroneous, it was merely missing a key detail, that the halt decider must base its halting status decision on the behavior of its simulation of its input. In that case the contradictory part of the input

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: Mikko

The erroneus statement is already retracted. Mikko

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

So if that's enough information to decide on, then tell me if this halts: void F() { X() } You can't, because X isn't specified. In the same way, the string you give above doesn't specify H, and H is part of P. The complete code of

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

Thee is no Pa, Pb, Pc, there is only this P: 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c40885c07402ebfe5dc3 There is no Ha, Hb, Hc, there is only H and H1.

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ] (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

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. You're projecting. The naming convention prevents YOU from being deceptive and claiming

Re: On the halting problem (final) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

You were correct that the input never reaches its impossible part because it is stuck in infinite recursion. This only occurs if the halt decider H is a simulating halt decider. When the input to H(P,P) does get stuck in infinite recurs

Re: Here is what I think will happen next.... (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

"Oh, no, no, no, Sally, that's not it. That's not it at all. I'm not listening to this crap, I wanna tune this guy out. Where's the remote, I want Fox News? Tell me what happens with this guy Philip White that I'm totally not obsesse

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

This version is clearer: void P(u32 x) { if (H(x, x)) HERE: goto HERE; return; } int main() { Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P)); }

Re: Here is what I think will happen next.... (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

I'm concerned: If I presented a literally *exact* play-by-play of how politics and American outcomes will go for the next four years, and how bad American decisions will be made, and exactly what could be done to stop it, would people d

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

The classic TM is not allowed to move before its beginning thus a std::vector is best for the tape.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3) (thread)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

They all have this same basis. The infinite recursion itself is evaluated.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

It took me from 2004 until 2016 studying nothing more than the first two pages of this proof: https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf to realize that infinite recursion is specified.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

This is true, yet only true for simulating halt deciders. The halt decider merely needs to recognize and report the infinite recursion.

Re: Next move

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

Flibble's idea of a category error is a brilliant new insight. It covers most pathological self-reference error. The huge mistake of logic is that it simply assumes that an expression of language that is not true must be false, simply a

Here is what I think will happen next....

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

- I will try to be nice and encourage Berkshire-Hathaway types to help me. - They will respond by slapping me. - I will issue a warning, demanding that I be treated fairly. - B-H types will laugh quietly and pretend to agree to that i

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

I never said anything like that. An expression of the language of Prolog is invalid, Prolog itself is valid. If you only glance at ten percent of the words that I say before artificially contriving a rebuttal your rebuttals are going

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise)

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 11 Hours ago by: olcott

That <is> the category error. Is this sentence true: "What time is it?" It is a category error only delclarative sentences can be true.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

For example, the quintuple 'SCcsm' is executed by the machine: If it is in state 'S' and is reading the symbol 'C' on the tape then (a) make a transition to state 's'. (b) overwrite the symbol 'C' on the tape with the symbol 'c'. //

Re: My credentials

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

3.515 = A-

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

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. It therefore doesn't specify a complete computatio

A hypothetial dialog between Philip and an angry stego-talker.

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: B.H.

Person: Philip, I am serious. I am angry at you over something that happened because of your maneuvering. Philip: Oh, but you won't stay it in English. How do I know that you are even really saying anything, given that your stego-text

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

David S. Woodruff's TM interpretor uses linear search.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: olcott

Conventionally tapes have an actual beginning, yet no fixed end.

How to deal with Biden's internet giveaway.

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 12 Hours ago by: B.H.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2497123/biden-starts-program-to-provide-discounted-internet-service.html The game-theory way to see this is: Joe Biden is trying to give happiness-inducing benefits--a free gem, which impacts player utility bas

Re: Next move

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 14 Hours ago by: Ben

Sadly that now includes the term "halting problem". It's defined to be something you now simply reject. The term, when used by you, allows a "halt decider" TM to reject at least one string that encodes a halting computation. Given th

Re: Crossword filling

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 14 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.11203.pdf (Sorry for the delay. We've had Easter and a product launch, and I haven't had time for crosswords).

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 16 Hours ago by: Ben

If you want, I can provide traces for testing. My interpreter takes a trace format argument so there's a reasonable chance I can make traces similar to yours. A reasonable test would be if you get the same number of steps for BB(4) an

Re: Next move [ truth itself is broken ]

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, you are still not using the Terms of Art in there correct way. Nope, you are WRONG. Nope, you are just wrong about Truth. You seem to have a problem with this, but it is true, there ARE things that are true but not provable. Th

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 14 Days 23 Hours ago by: olcott

Mine is almost working. I got David S. Woodruff's TM.exe to show me the trace that I am supposed to get on his paren.tm program. My TM.cpp does the first four steps of this correctly.

Re: Next move [ truth itself is broken ]

comp.ai.philosophy

Posted: 15 Days ago by: olcott

My biggest mistake that cost me credibility was that I was not using the conventional terms of the art in their conventional way. Now I am using subtle nuances the conventional terms of the art that are too subtle for anyone besides one

Re: Next move

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days ago by: Richard Damon

Only because you are't defining your condition to be that of a halt decider. H(P,P), if H IS a Halt Decider, must report TRUE if P(P) Halts, which since YOUR H(P,P) returns FALSE, it will. Your little ditty about that H must only compu

Re: Next move

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 1 Hour ago by: Python

Peter, you should consider seriously what's just happened with Mr Flibble. This is a very unusual, hence deserving to be pointed out, situation : someone (Mr Flibble) wrong on Usenet (or Internet for that matters...) admitted after only

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 1 Hour ago by: Ben

There was a bug (now fixed) so that when the initial tape is empty there would be a couple of false transitions.

Re: Next move

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

When the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) specifies infinite recursion then P never reaches the contradictory part and H can correctly recognize this infinite behavior pattern and reject this input. The first three pages of th

Re: On the halting problem (final)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 1 Hour ago by: Python

Everytime somewone wrong on Usenet admits he was wrong — what doesn't happen often — the nym-shifting-troll lose a part of his body.

Re: On the halting problem (final)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 2 Hours ago by: Heywood Jablome

Post it 78,488,747 more times you retarded rectum load of Hitler penis.

Re: On the halting problem (final)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 3 Hours ago by: Ben

Imagine a Lisp decider. This is a lisp function that always returns and reports on some property of it's argument. For example (defun is_big (exp) (> (size exp) 42)) with size a bit like this: (defun size (exp) (if (atom exp

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 3 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Strachey doesn't say how to write T, and since he proves that creating a correct program T is impossibe, I wouldn't expect him to. What the test is, though, is simple. Take the program T, and the program R, and first run T[R] (that is

Re: A wild theory to consider about Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 3 Hours ago by: Señor_Dingus

Shut up idiot.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 4 Hours ago by: Ben

That's all it is, like T(R) in C (with R a void function being the closest thing to a routine in C). But, as you've seen, there's a basic problem with all sketches like this. You have to imagine that whatever T /might/ be able to do w

A wild theory to consider about Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 4 Hours ago by: B.H.

Have you considered that are probably about maybe 6 people in the world that most people have heard of who would be capable of tolerating and approving of the kind of brutality that Biden and Obama have ordered done against me, and others,

Re: Next move

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Seriously embarrassing. Mr Flibble is very cross. :D /Flibble

Re: On the halting problem (final)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 4 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

Many programs can be run unproblematically on their own source. For instnace if a word processor is used to edit its own source, no-one would see anything paradoxical about that.

On the halting problem (final)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 4 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Based on the assumption that [Strachey, 1965] is not actually advocating running a program (either through direct execution or by simulation) to determine if that program halts Strachey's "Impossible Program" is indeed impossible for the re

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 5 Hours ago by: olcott

Yes that is the way that I did it. David S. Woodruff simply does a linear search. When I am refraining from doing work on Sunday, responding to your posts has a higher priority than responding to anyone else's posts because you are my

Re: Innovation/Engineering Update: Two New Good Product Ideas

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

I just thought of another application I could do just now: 3) Indoor/Outdoor Conditions Establishment -- temperature, humidity, wind speed, and likely even ozone depletion could be regulated with a flying EE device, based on what I now

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 5 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Confusion lay with what Strachey said: "T[R] = True if R terminates if run" "if run" doesn't have to mean T[R] runs R. HOWEVER it would be nice to know what T[R] actually means in the obsolete CPL programming language Strachey is usin

Innovation/Engineering Update: Two New Good Product Ideas

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 5 Hours ago by: B.H.

Hi everyone, I have two new great ideas for EE products that I've made some good progress on: 1) Physical Disability Aid Device -- if a person in a wheelchair or someone who is visually/hearing impaired is going out in public, the devi

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 5 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope. Yes, R will call/invoke T to get a value, but T does not (and in fact can not) invoke R to determine if it halts, so no infinite recursion. Note, you are making the error of assuming that the only way to even try to determine if

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 6 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS84LzIwMjIgMToyMiBQTSwgUmljaGFyZCBEYW1vbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gNS84LzIy IDI6MjcgUE0sIEJlbiB3cm90ZToNCj4+IEplZmYgQmFybmV0dCA8amJiQG5vdGF0dC5jb20+ IHdyaXRlczoNCj4+DQo+Pj4gT24gNS84LzIwMjIgNzo0NCBBTSwgQmVuIHdyb3RlOg0KPj4+ PiBKZWZmIEJhcm5ldHQgP

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 7 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You continue to be wrong and fractally so. The infinite recursion will ALWAYS happen according to the definition of the proof. Again: read AND UNDERSTAND what Strachey actually wrote. /Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 7 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

I have. T[R] is defined to be a boolean function that returns True if routine R (taking no parameters) Halts, and False if R never halts. Thus, for ANY input program, T must itself Halt, that requirement INCLUDES if R calls T[R], so i

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 8 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Have you considered std::deque? Might be worth trying if the tape sequence isn't small. /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 8 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

My thinking is that there are only two things that have the ability to "cost" time. One is tape management, but using an object that acts like an array which is indexed in makes this fast except when we need to expand it, but that will

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 8 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You are simply wrong, and fractally so. Try reading what Strachey actually wrote. /Flibble

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 8 Hours ago by: Ben

You don't really need much. A simple print of the tape (centred on the head) give the feel for what's happening. Throw in a \r and a delay and will look like an animation even in a plain tty. With tracing turned on, my simple impleme

walmart

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 8 Hours ago by: B.H.

0 So, I had to go to both different Walmarts and then Food Lion today. Food Lion didn't bother me though. Here is some advice for various Walmart employees with ongoing idiocy problems: - Do not sexually harass me at your workplace.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 9 Hours ago by: Ben

Thanks, but there's no skill involved, other that not picking any part of the design that looks like a certain loser. Seems likely. Yes, single core. My laptop is not an old banger (1.6Ghz i5-8256U), but even so I was surprised. T

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Yes, if you want to watch the machine run, you are limiting your step rate to Human speed. If you can watch 1 step a second, the 47 million steps is on the order of a year and a half at 24-7, but then the limiting factor isn't the com

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 9 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, because if T actually meets the requirement to be able to take ANY program and answer, then it need to be able to take a program that uses a copy of T in it, as that is a valid program. If T gets into an infinite recursion on suc

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 10 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

Impressive. I'm going to conjecture from the rate of interpretation 47M/.237s ~ 200,000,000 states per second that TM definition, your code, and used library code must have all snuggled into the machine cache. I'm also assuming that the

Three things that would have very likely helped me escape captivity

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 11 Hours ago by: B.H.

Although I'm generally pleased with my psych care and education over the years, my top criticism is: There are lots of things that could have been communicated to me, such as the above 3 things or some sort of clear warning about wha

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 13 Hours ago by: Ben

What do you use linear search for? I thought the key structure you used was a std::set.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 13 Hours ago by: Ben

Measured. $ time ./tm bb-5-2 "" A B C D E H 1 1LC 1RB _LE 1LD _LA _ 1RB 1RC 1RD 1LA 1RH stepsG176874 real 0m0.237s user 0m0.237s sys 0m0.000s This is a C++ interpreter I've just written so that I can compare de

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 14 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Nope. Strachey's proof is based on a contradiction relating to evaluating the result of T[P] however T[P] can never be evaluated if there is an infinite recursion. /Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, you haven't. All you have shown is that one way to attempt to make the program that Strachev says doesn't exist, fails due to getting caught in infinite recursion. That just helps confirm Strachev, not refute it.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 15 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

Whilst you might write a pure implementation of a Turing machine as a first step, you're unlikely to use it much. People want to see the machine buzz and whir away, as it performs its magic. So that means some sort of graphical interface.

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

I have shown that [Strachey, 1965] contains an infinite recursion and is thus invalid. /Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 15 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

It is a pretty stunning omission. No, Occams's Razor suggests it is an oversight. The proof is invalid. /Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 15 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

No, because if T gets stuck in an infinite recursion, it is wrong, because it failed to answer in finite time. If T does answer in finite time, then there never was an infinite recursion. All you have shown is that there exists a WRONG

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

A well written TM interpreter on modern hardware should be able to do many millions of steps a second (as I posted a main loop that can do that), so we are in seconds. IF we need to generate a trace that can be inspected by a human, we

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 16 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

That means it is using the wrong data structure. I would probably just use an array for the rule storage, having an array of structures of Next State, Replacement Charactrer, Tape Motion, and index it on Current State and Current Tape

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 17 Hours ago by: Mikko

Don't forget that Strachey is not presenting a new proof but merely offering another point of view to an already existing proof. Therefore it is not important that his presentantion be complete. More important is that it covers the main

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 17 Hours ago by: Malcolm McLean

The easiest way to make a set do what you want is to overload the '<' operator for struct Quintuple. Then you fill a blank Quintuple with the state and input symbol, and call the "find" method on the set to retrive the full Quintuple. It

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 18 Hours ago by: Mikko

Where in the spec is the requirement that there be a function from int and int to std::set<Quintuple>::iterator that is named NextState? Mikko

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 18 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

Strachey is wrong because he neglected to account for the infinite recursion; this should be obvious to anyone who has actually read and understood what Strachey wrote: it seems that you haven't. /Flibble

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 19 Hours ago by: Mikko

If you can prove that the program does give the correct result in that case you have proven Strachey wrong. Otherwise you haven't. Mikko

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 19 Hours ago by: Mikko

OK, now it is clear enough. You have said that an infinite recursion in the definition makes Prolog invalid but it is valid anyway. So we can see that your opinions are incoherent and not worth of attention. Mikko

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise)

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 19 Hours ago by: Mikko

Irrelevant if the expression is invalid for some more obvious reason such as category error. Mikko

Re: Next move

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 20 Hours ago by: Mikko

You havn't established anything. Your bluff about the category error is too easy to expose. You should try equivocation error instead. Then you can claim a longer chain of equivocations if nothing else helps. Mikko

Re: My credentials

comp.theory

Posted: 15 Days 23 Hours ago by: Jeff Barnett

T24gNS83LzIwMjIgMTI6NDUgUE0sIG9sY290dCB3cm90ZToNCj4gT24gNS83LzIwMjIgMToz MSBQTSwgTWlrZSBUZXJyeSB3cm90ZToNCj4+IE9uIDA3LzA1LzIwMjIgMTc6NTEsIG9sY290 dCB3cm90ZToNCj4+PiBPbiA1LzcvMjAyMiAxMTo0MyBBTSwgTXIgRmxpYmJsZSB3cm90ZToN Cj4+Pj4gTXkgY3JlZGVud

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 1 Hour ago by: Dennis Bush

That string is 100% NOT concrete because it doesn't specify the function that it is calling. It therefore doesn't specify a complete computation, so NO that is not the only thing you're referring to. The H that it calls is a part of it

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

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 decep

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 1 Hour ago by: olcott

The TM interpreter uses linear search, I hate that, it doesn't scale.

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 1 Hour ago by: Jeff Barnett

Questions: Was 47 million steps a measured or a theoretically computed measure? How long would you estimate that a well-written TM interpreter on modern hardware needs to interpret the above? A few seconds or minutes?

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

So no rebuttal, just a bad analogy. No, just the opposite. It makes it clear *exactly* which computation we're talking about, so it prevents YOU from being deceptive. No you're not. You're also referring to the literal string which

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Except that isn't the correct string for either Pn or Pa, as we need the contents of memory address 826 and beyond, or the program isn't actually specifed by this input. This is your fatal flaw in your "proof". Your system is built on

Re: All my reviewers expect a halt decider to have psychic power

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Nope, YOUR "requirements" contradict the definition of a xyz decider. The only requirement of just a "decider" is that it halts on all inputs, which means it incidentally computes SOME mapping of input to output, but that mapping isn't

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: Richard Damon

Please give your exact definition of a decider that you are using. except that byte string isn't a fully specified program, so you have an error in you definition. This input references something outside of it, so that program segme

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: olcott

In this case it is the same as if {dogs} are defined to be {cats}. All that crazy bullshit about subscripted names of subscripts is extremely deceptive I am ONLY referring to this literal string: 558bec8b4508508b4d0851e840feffff83c408

Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise #3)

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: Mr Flibble

You are confusing me with Olcott: I have never mentioned the simulation method. It is obvious that you are still missing the point. /Flibble

Re: On Strachey [ How nuts is that? ]

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: Dennis Bush

Which in the case of H(P,P) is *defined* to be P(P) What I was saying is that you think that H sees infinite simulation which only exists in Pn(Pn) Which in the case of H(P,P) is *defined* to be P(P) Which in the case of H(P,P) is *

Re: All my reviewers expect a halt decider to have psychic power

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 2 Hours ago by: Ben

No. It us unlikely you will ever concede this point, so all you have to offer now is a back and forth endless loop. I offered to help you see why you are wrong, but you failed to write even the simplest Turing machine and have so far

Re: All my reviewers expect a halt decider to have psychic power

comp.theory

Posted: 16 Days 3 Hours ago by: olcott

On 5/7/2022 7:19 PM, olcott wrote: The requirements contradict the definition of a decider. The author of these requirements was not aware of that.

1084 recent articles found.

rocksolid light 0.7.2
clearneti2ptor