Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

But you'll notice Perl has a goto. -- Larry Wall in <199710211624.JAA17833@wall.org>


devel / comp.lang.c / Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

SubjectAuthor
o Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott

1
Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17109&group=comp.lang.c++#17109

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng comp.lang.c
Followup: comp.theory
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:56 UTC

On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>
>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>
>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>
>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler
>> leaves
>> in its wake.
>>
>
> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the seagulls
> didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>
> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
> roof at the break of dawn...
>
> Mike.
>

It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the
conventional halting problem counter-examples.

The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does
not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in
providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
rebuttals were incorrect.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor