Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85149
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem |
| Message-ID | <20220713182755.0000513f@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <-bWdnc2EzYm6s1P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <PfqzK.360372$ssF.203774@fx14.iad> <rNGdnaEiAbjIrlP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <nlyzK.502768$5fVf.118235@fx09.iad> <UsKdnYFrVr34JVP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-13 18:27 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 07:19:48 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/2022 6:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 7/12/22 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 7/12/2022 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 7/12/22 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 7/12/2022 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/12/22 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 7/12/2022 9:14 AM, Freethinker wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12.07.22 01:14, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/11/2022 4:13 PM, Albert Arkwright wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/07/2022 11:28, Mark Bluemel wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> As you'd remember if you actually read this newsgroup, we
> >>>>>>>>>> discussed this nearly 4 months ago when the article came
> >>>>>>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I doubt we need to cover the ground again.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why don't you tell the same thing to that idiot called
> >>>>>>>>> Olcott? He keeps
> >>>>>>>>> posting the same thing every two weeks and there are two
> >>>>>>>>> guys here who
> >>>>>>>>> keep responding to him, instead of kill-filing him.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Olcott comes here because he is getting a response; Olcott
> >>>>>>>>> won't go
> >>>>>>>>> anywhere unless people stop responding to him completely.
> >>>>>>>>> Just ignore him;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I won't go anywhere until my work is validated whether or
> >>>>>>>> not anyone responds. I just had a very extensive review (23
> >>>>>>>> emails) by a leading computer scientist.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because of this review I was able to simplify my
> >>>>>>>> presentation so that everyone here can easily verify that I
> >>>>>>>> have correctly refuted the halting theorem on this pure
> >>>>>>>> software engineering basis:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> OK, so now that we have easily verified that, would you
> >>>>>>> please stop posting this same thing millions of times?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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 of what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that
> >>>>>> handles this case*
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is not verified until it is understood that P and H
> >>>>>> implement the classical halting problem "impossible input"
> >>>>>> template (as shown above) and refutes this template in that
> >>>>>> H(P,P) correctly determines that its input never terminates
> >>>>>> normally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *This is the key software engineering that I need validated*
> >>>>>> Most anyone here can easily verify that the simulated input to
> >>>>>> H(P,P) cannot possibly terminate normally.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The next level of pure software engineering is that H(P,P)
> >>>>>> correctly predicts that its simulated input cannot possibly
> >>>>>> terminate normally. It may be the case that only the top 5% of
> >>>>>> software engineers can validate this point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
> >>>>>> int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>> return;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Simulating halt decider H detects that its simulated input is
> >>>>>> essentially calling H in infinite recursion. H aborts its
> >>>>>> simulation on this basis and rejects this input as non-halting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The execution trace of function P() simulated by function H()
> >>>>>> shows: (1) Function H() is called from P().
> >>>>>> (2) With the same parameters to H().
> >>>>>> (3) With no instructions in P() that could possibly escape
> >>>>>> this infinitely recursive simulation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *That was all of the software engineering that I need
> >>>>>> validated*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software
> >>>>>> engineering
> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And your property (3) is incorrect the way you use it. The
> >>>>> CORRECT version of (3) looks ALL the way through the loop,
> >>>>> which includes in H, and will find the condtional there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> H(P,P) correctly predicts that its input cannot possibly
> >>>> terminate normally. (I have better words now).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Except that the program represented by the input, P(P) DOES
> >>> terminate normally if H(P,P) returns 0.
> >>
> >> *CHANGING THE SUBJECT IS NEVER A REBUTTAL*
> >> Simulating halt decider H(P,P) correctly predicts that its
> >> correctly simulated input cannot possibly terminate normally.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > WHAT Change of subject?
> >
>
> IT IS A VERIFIED FACT THAT
> Simulating halt decider H(P,P) correctly predicts that its correctly
> simulated input cannot possibly terminate normally.
>
> The only possible correct rebuttal must show all the steps of exactly
> how the input to simulating halt decider H(P,P) does terminate
> normally when H correctly simulates this input.
>
> Since I already proved that this is false entirely on the basis of
> verified fact this is impossible.
>
> This requires that a function called in essentially infinite
> recursion to return a value to its caller this is impossible.
>
> Most everyone here knows that every function called in infinite
> recursion never returns any value to its caller. There is no
> gibberish that you can say that would convince them otherwise.
There is no infinite recursion in [Strachey 1965] or the HP proofs
based on it. I have shown that a simulating halt decider needn't be
recursive in nature: only your broken solution has a problem with
infinite recursion.
/Flibble
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Albert Arkwright <Albert.Arkwright@gmail.com> - 2022-07-11 22:13 +0100
H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-11 18:14 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Freethinker <freethinker@mymail.com> - 2022-07-12 16:14 +0200
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 20:49 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 22:26 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 21:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 22:39 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 21:52 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 07:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 07:19 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-13 18:27 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 19:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 19:06 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 21:20 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 20:34 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 21:55 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 21:08 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 22:21 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 21:55 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 05:18 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 23:27 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 07:53 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 05:43 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 07:08 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-14 16:06 +0000
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 23:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 07:52 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 05:49 -0500
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 07:12 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 17:48 +0100
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 07:07 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2022-07-18 17:51 +0300
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 22:29 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 19:41 -0700
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem - Olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 20:03 -0700
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:55 -0400
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 22:04 -0700
Re: H(P,P) is pure software engineering that correctly refutes the halting theorem Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2022-07-13 21:08 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-12 09:52 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-12 11:27 +0100
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 13:01 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-12 22:19 +0100
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" [Olcott] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 21:04 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-07-13 10:02 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-07-13 15:24 +0000
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2022-07-13 19:00 +0100
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 15:31 -0700
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 14:29 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 14:46 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 07:48 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 21:45 -0400
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-07-17 08:18 +0200
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 07:45 -0500
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 21:39 -0400
Re: "C: Everyone's favourite programming language isn't a programming language" olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 07:45 -0500
csiph-web