André Isaak, Ben Bacarisse, Mike Terry, Dennis Bush, Richard Damon all
take the position against this tautology:

They all take the position that the fact that the input to H(P,P) is
non-halting is not an entirely sufficient reason for H to report that
its input is non-halting.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

On 4/16/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
> "B.H." <xlt.pjw@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 9:21:53 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 6:31:21 PM UTC-4, Ben wrote:
>>>>> "B.H." <xlt...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 5:17:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a sufficient reason to say that H is non-halting, but how would
>>>>>> H, the algorithm itself, report that?
>>>>> By returning false. The key case PO obsesses about is H(P,P) with P
>>>>> defined as, very roughly
>>>>>
>>>>> void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) while (1); }
>>>>>
>>>>> PO tells us, contrary to the facts, that H(P,P) == false is correct even
>>>>> though P(P) obviously "halts" (i.e. returns in this C formulation).
>>>>
>>>> Although I am not familiar with the idea of inputting functions to
>>>> functions in C, and have never seen "ptr" as the syntax for pointers
>>> It's a typedef name. There was another post where I included the
>>> definition, but since PO uses an integer, the type is not agreed upon.
>>> Hence the "very roughly".
>>>> (I don't like pointers and haven't used them in a while, but usually I
>>>> used * in school), but you would appear to have said something
>>>> incorrect...it looks like P(P) would not halt because H, presumably a
>>>> direct simulator of P on P until P halts on its input, would never
>>>> halt, thus P would never return at all...it would never halt.
>>> H is supposed to be a halt decider (if only for this one case) so it
>>> must return. The one thing it can't do is act like a pure simulator.
>>>
>>> PO does sometimes flip to claiming that the call to H in P won't return
>>> (while saying that a top-level call will) but that's really just a case
>>> of PO saying what's needed to get out of a bind. H must return the same
>>> result, for the same arguments values, no matter where it is called from.
>>>> Ahh, the thrill of victory...it's like playing Pendulum Castle [1],
>>>> but easier, from Super Mario once again.
>>> What victory?
>>
>> The victory of accuracy. I won, the concession is implicit; it's a
>> proof by inspection. You might want to concede to avoid getting
>> pegged as "an Obama-oid."
>
> I am very happy for you. Do you now see why PO is wrong?
>

If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of machine
code at machine address [000009d6] by H would show some correct
execution trace from machine address [000009d6] ending at machine
address [000009f0].

_P()
[000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
[000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
[000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
[000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
[000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
[000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
[000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]

That everyone refuses this challenge proves that it is beyond their
technical capacity or that they are liars.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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