Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.nat-lang,sci.lang.semantics Subject: Re: Simply defining =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2020 18:37:24 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 71 Message-ID: <878sen5lij.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <87imdvl9ew.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87364zkytg.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87a6z6juzc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <871rkijczj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87mu36hwkw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87d040fylq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <877du8fw5d.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87sgcveqcz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87a6z3edvq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87d03z5wa0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9a8e452c1518fb0522423c029e73ba21"; logging-data="13509"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bQyfkzJr5cQ4o2jfXDdKd" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9VpHyPnR1DrSKuG0YswyPVZbQZ8= sha1:oYOvKqDM8QSC6RC6x5+eSlKGTVQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:22236 comp.ai.philosophy:22277 comp.ai.nat-lang:2609 olcott writes: > On 8/9/2020 4:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> olcott writes: >>> On 8/9/2020 3:57 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> [...] >>>> You don't have, and have never had, a Turing machine with the properties >>>> you claim. It would be good if you admitted that and moved on because >>>> attempting to defend the indefensible is taking up a lot of your time. >>> >>> I have a finite state machine that implements computationally >>> equivalent code to the Peter Linz H_Hat such that this computational >>> equivalent correctly decides halting on itself showing exactly how the >>> standard self-referential halting problem counter-example can be >>> defeated. >> >> As I recall, you've claimed to have pseudocode that you were going >> to translate into working software. Did you ever actually get it >> written and running? >> >> Do you have a finite state machine, or do you merely have an *idea* >> for a finite state machine? > > I translated the finite state equivalent of the same self-referential > counter-example that all the Halting Problem proofs are based on into > "C". I am using a very excellent x86 interpreter to run the machine > code of this "C" function. It turns out that Visual "C++" generates > machine code that is easier to understand than g++. So now you have a "C" function. The quotation marks around C seem odd. Are they significant, and if so, what's the difference between a "C" function and a C function? I presume you're referring to the C programming language. How many lines of C code are in this function? I presume posting that number wouldn't harm its "trade secret" status. (I'm not interested in any answer to this question that isn't a specific positive integer.) Does this function conform to the C language standard? Which edition (C90, C99, C11, ...)? Does this "C" function exist in the context of a C program that you can compile, link, and execute? Have you done so? Why do you need an x86 interpreter to "run the machine code of this "C" function"? Why can't you just compile it with an ordinary C compiler and execute it? I understand that the goal is to feed your program its own machine code as input (correct?), but are you able to create an executable that can be run with, for example, empty input? (I understand that it might fail with empty input, but the ability to run the program *at all* is a significant step.) > The machine code examines itself and decides halting on itself. > The key part that I have been working on for the last week is building > the context switching aspect of the master UTM such that one UTM can > execute another UTM and this can be to arbitrary depth. I am guessing > that this will be done very soon. Although this is the most difficult > part that remains it is standard operating system software > engineering. > > Converting an x86 interpreter into a UTM that can execute a chain of > UTMs of arbitrary depth has taken most of my time. Half of this time > was learning the internals of the x86 interpreter well enough that I > can make the changes needed. Less that 10% of my time was spent on > anything directly related to halt deciding. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */