Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #122522 > unrolled thread

How is this answer not self-evident ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 00:30 -0500
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:55 -0500
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Rice's Theorem is now Rice Krispies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:30 -0500
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 06:40 +0000
      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 10:18 +0200
      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-14 09:06 -0400
        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 09:17 -0500
          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation minforth <minforth@gmx.net> - 2025-08-14 18:54 +0200
            Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 09:35 +0200
              Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 09:16 -0500
                Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 16:26 +0200
                  Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-23 15:41 +0100
                    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 17:10 +0200
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 23:30 +0800
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 18:46 +0200
                          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 09:52 +0800
                            Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 04:29 +0200
                              Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 10:41 +0800
                                Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 12:09 +0200
                                  Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 22:29 +0800
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 23:30 +0800
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 10:32 -0500
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-23 17:46 +0000
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 12:52 -0500
                    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:21 -0500
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-24 09:35 +0200
                  Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 10:25 -0500
                    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 15:33 +0000
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:23 -0500
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 16:41 +0000
                          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:56 -0500
                            Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-30 10:08 -0500
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 18:46 +0200
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 16:48 +0000
                          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:57 -0500
              Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Dr. Who <dr.who@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-23 15:15 +0000
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 07:01 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#122624 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 17:10 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> > On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
> > > 
> > > > The actual case is that you are too f-cking
> > > > stupid to find any mistake in my work.
> > > 
> > > I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
> > > for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> > 
> > I beg your pardon?
> > 
> > If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the 
> > Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
> 
> That has no practical relevance.
> 
> > 
> > *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
> > 
> > He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
> > 
> > > And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
> > > against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
> > > respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
> > 
> > You start.
> 
> I don't argue against him in his sense.

If you cannot find the error of POOH, crazy or psychosis might be you.
Why not join the club to see what you though you understand? Maybe none.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122625 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 10:10 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>>
>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
>>
>> I beg your pardon?
>>
>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the 
>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
> 
> That has no practical relevance.
> 

Like the practical relevance of
proofs of total correctness.

We could do something like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful
and restrict programming style so that termination
is always provable.

>>
>> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
>>
>> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
>>
>>> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
>>> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
>>> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
>>
>> You start.
> 
> I don't argue against him in his sense.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122635 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

In comp.lang.c Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>>
>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
>> 
>> I beg your pardon?
>> 
>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the 
>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
> 
> That has no practical relevance.

It has more relevance than you want to admit.  If Pete had working
halting decider he would not waste time on newsgroups.  He would
be making money, possibly as a service to business.  Or he would
generate a lot of bitcoins.  Or turn to illegal activity, for
example break encryption and use the break to hijack money flowing
in electronic exchanges.

Note that basically one call to halting decider gives you one
bit towards solution of arbitrary problem, with cost depending
only on length of problem description.  Few thousends of calls
and you have broken RSA as it is currently used.

But Pete does not have working halting decider, so instead he tries
to get some attention in newsgroups.  And that works quite well,
for many years he gets many replies.  It is not clear if he has
psychic problem.  Maybe he just has fun wasting others time
(which you could argue is a psychic problem too, but relatively
light compared to first alternative).

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122636 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 12:46 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> In comp.lang.c Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
>>>
>>> I beg your pardon?
>>>
>>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the
>>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
>>
>> That has no practical relevance.
> 
> It has more relevance than you want to admit.  If Pete had working
> halting decider he would not waste time on newsgroups.  He would
> be making money, possibly as a service to business.  Or he would
> generate a lot of bitcoins.  Or turn to illegal activity, for
> example break encryption and use the break to hijack money flowing
> in electronic exchanges.
> 
> Note that basically one call to halting decider gives you one
> bit towards solution of arbitrary problem, with cost depending
> only on length of problem description.  Few thousends of calls
> and you have broken RSA as it is currently used.
> 
> But Pete does not have working halting decider, so instead he tries
> to get some attention in newsgroups.  And that works quite well,
> for many years he gets many replies.  It is not clear if he has
> psychic problem.  Maybe he just has fun wasting others time
> (which you could argue is a psychic problem too, but relatively
> light compared to first alternative).
> 

I have conclusively proved that in the conventional
halting problem proofs the decider H would be correct
to reject its input P on the basis that P correctly
simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated
final halt state.

That people ignore this verified fact as the basis
for denigrating my work and my character is the
kind of reckless disregard for the truth that loses
defamation cases.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122627 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 9:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>
>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> 
> I beg your pardon?
> 
> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the 
> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
> 
> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
> 

Thus providing evidence that Bonita Montero is a mere troll.

> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
> 

*This is a fact proven true on the basis of its meaning*
When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly
simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches
its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.

>> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
>> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
>> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
> 
> You start.
> 

I don't let people get away with denying facts
that are proven true by the meaning of their words.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122640 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Op 23.aug.2025 om 18:21 schreef olcott:
> On 8/23/2025 9:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>>
>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
>>
>> I beg your pardon?
>>
>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the 
>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
>>
>> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
>>
> 
> Thus providing evidence that Bonita Montero is a mere troll.
> 
>> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
>>
> 
> *This is a fact proven true on the basis of its meaning*
> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly
> simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches
> its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.

As usual irrelevant claims.
For each of these input it can been proven that the final halt state is 
specified in the input by using other means, like world-class simulators.
The failure to reach the final halt state does not change that 
specification of the input.
It only shows why simulation is not the correct tool.
Not reaching the final halt state is a property of the simulator, not of 
the program specified in its input

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122622 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
> 
>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
> 
> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.

The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs
equally applies to the Tarski Undecidability theorem
thus enabling a Boolean True(Language L, Expression E)
to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L
that are proven true on the basis of their meaning.

True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122626 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:

> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>> 
>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any mistake
>>> in my work.
>> 
>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for years.
>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then maybe
>> it will calm down.
> 
> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies to
> the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean True(Language
> L, Expression E)
> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven true
> on the basis of their meaning.
> 
> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE

True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by 
Olcott")==TRUE

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122628 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any mistake
>>>> in my work.
>>>
>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for years.
>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then maybe
>>> it will calm down.
>>
>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies to
>> the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean True(Language
>> L, Expression E)
>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven true
>> on the basis of their meaning.
>>
>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
> 
> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
> Olcott")==TRUE
> 
> /Flibble

True("English",
"Halting Problem proofs have not "
"yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE

*This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly
simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches
its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122629 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:

> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>> years.
>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then
>>>> maybe it will calm down.
>>>
>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies
>>> to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>
>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>> 
>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>> Olcott")==TRUE
>> 
>> /Flibble
> 
> True("English",
> "Halting Problem proofs have not "
> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
> 
> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement final
> halt state.

The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares about 
what your simulation does, what actually matters is what HHH reports (and 
all deciders must report) to the REAL DD (the ultimate caller of HHH) and 
then what the REAL DD does.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122633 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 11:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>>> years.
>>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then
>>>>> maybe it will calm down.
>>>>
>>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies
>>>> to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>
>>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>>
>>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> True("English",
>> "Halting Problem proofs have not"
>> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
>>
>> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
>> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
>> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement final
>> halt state.
> 
> The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares about
> what your simulation does, 

*Unless they pay attention to this*
Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their inputs...

and also realize that DD correctly simulated by HHH
does correctly measure the actual behavior actually
specified by the actual input...

> what actually matters is what HHH reports (and

Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
What matters is what HHH(DD) should report
on the basis of the actual behavior that the
actual input actually specifies as correctly
measured by DD correctly simulated by HHH.

Thus we can know that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
> all deciders must report) to the REAL DD (the ultimate caller of HHH) and
> then what the REAL DD does.
> 
> /Flibble


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122676 — Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD)

On 8/30/2025 1:06 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-08-29, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When I say something 500 times that does not
>> count as I said it zero times.
>>
>> DD correctly simulated by HHH specifies the
>> non-halting behavior pattern of recursive
>> simulation.
> 
> Using a bit of logical formalism:
> 
>     correctly_simulated(DD) -> ~ halts(DD)
> 
> Given P -> Q, we can derive the contrapositive ~Q -> ~P.
> In this case:
> 
>     ~ ~ halts(DD) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD)
> 
> Cancel double negative:
> 
>     halts(DD) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD)
> 
>> If HHH can recognize this repeating state as
>> a pure function of its inputs then HHH(DD)
>> returns 0 for non-halting and DD() halts.
> 
>  From this paragraph we can extract:
> 
>    returns_zero(HHH(DD)) -> halts (DD)
> 
> OK, so we have these propositions together:
> 
>    1. returns_zero(HHH(DD)) -> halts (DD)    ;; from second paragraph
> 
>    2. halts(DD) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD) ;; from first paragraph
> 
> By the transitive property of the arrow: P -> Q ^ Q -> R  =>  P -> R,
> therefore we have:
> 
>    3. returns_zero(HHH(DD)) -> ~ correctly_simulated(DD)
> 
> You are logically arguing that if HHH(DD) returns
> zero, then DD is not correctly simulated (because it halts).
> 

We just use your idea of establishing
naming conventions:

HHH(DD).exe returns 0 because DD.sim1
cannot possibly halt then DD.exe halts.
DD.exe is outside of the scope of HHH.exe.

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

DD.exe is executed.
DD.exe calls HHH(DD).exe
HHH.exe simulates DD.sim1
DD.sim1 calls HHH(DD).sim1
HHH.sim1 simulates DD.sim2
DD.sim2 calls HHH(DD).sim2 ... This would repeat unless aborted
if aborted then DD.exe halts

This exact same thing happens with the Linz
Turing Machine based proof.

Machine M contains simulating halt decider H based on a UTM
M.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.∞
M.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.qn

*Repeats until aborted proving non-halting*
(a) M copies its input ⟨M⟩
(b) M invokes M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩
(c) M.H simulates ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩

then M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ transitions to M.qn
causing M applied to ⟨M⟩ halt




-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122630 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 23.08.2025 um 17:33 schrieb Mr Flibble:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any mistake
>>>> in my work.
>>>
>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for years.
>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then maybe
>>> it will calm down.
>>
>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies to
>> the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean True(Language
>> L, Expression E)
>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven true
>> on the basis of their meaning.
>>
>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
> 
> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
> Olcott")==TRUE

You're not much better than Pete.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122632 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 18:46:05 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:

> Am 23.08.2025 um 17:33 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>> years.
>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then
>>>> maybe it will calm down.
>>>
>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies
>>> to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>
>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>> 
>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>> Olcott")==TRUE
> 
> You're not much better than Pete.

It is a well known fact that you are just a troll.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122634 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 11:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 18:46:05 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> 
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 17:33 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>>> years.
>>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then
>>>>> maybe it will calm down.
>>>>
>>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies
>>>> to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>
>>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>>
>>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>
>> You're not much better than Pete.
> 
> It is a well known fact that you are just a troll.
> 
> /Flibble

Good call, at least in this case.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122621 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 23/08/2025 08:35, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 14.08.2025 um 18:54 schrieb minforth:
>> Am 14.08.2025 um 16:17 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/14/2025 8:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 2025-08-14 02:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.
>>>>
>>>> It means that the message providing the answer contains, in itself, all
>>>> the evidence anyone needs to easily determine that the answer is true.
>>>> In practice, it is often used when the answer is not actually true.
>>>> Compare with a "no-brainer", where, in practice, the decision is almost
>>>> always not the one that would be chosen if the brain were fully 
>>>> engaged.
>>>
>>> <Input to LLM systems>
>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and 
>>> return 0.
>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>>> <Input to LLM systems>
>>>
>>> *The above was self-evident to three LLM systems*
>>> I still find that it is absurd that no one here can
>>> figure out something as simple as recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> Three different LLM systems figured out that the execution
>>> trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH does match the
>>> *recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
>>> on their own without prompting that such a pattern even exists.
>>>
>>>     The simulation shows DD calling HHH(DD) repeatedly
>>>     This creates an infinite recursive loop in the simulation
>>>     No simulated execution path leads to DD's return statement
>>>     being reached
>>>     https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
>>>
>>>     In other words, simulating DD() requires simulating
>>>     HHH(DD), which requires simulating DD() again… recursive
>>>     simulation.
>>>
>>>     This creates an infinite regress — HHH cannot finish
>>>     simulating DD() because to simulate it, it must simulate
>>>     itself again, and again, and again…
>>>     https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
>>>
>>>     When HHH simulates DD, it must model DD's execution,
>>>     including the call to HHH(DD) within DD.
>>>     This introduces a recursive simulation: HHH simulating
>>>     DD involves simulating DD's call to HHH(DD), which
>>>     requires HHH to simulate DD again, and so on.
>>>
>>> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21- 
>>> eedd0f09e141
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This whole thread is sheer nonsense. Your summer too hot??
> 
> No, pete has a psychosis or is manic.

This applies to people as well who respond to others knowing their situation. I 
know I shouldn't respond to you, but I don't know whether you're 
psychotic or manic as well. You are Italian/German, but I don't make 
generalisations about such things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122536 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz

On 8/15/2025 6:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 14.aug.2025 om 19:35 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/14/2025 12:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-08-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-08-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input 
>>>>>> until:
>>>>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
>>>>>> return 0.
>>>>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: 
>>>>>> return 1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>      if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>      return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>>>>>
>>>>> The thing is that the procedure DD /integrates/ the deciding
>>>>> function HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we have not yet committed to a behavior and return value for 
>>>>> HHH(DD),
>>>>> then it means we have not yet committed to the design of DD itself!
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to commit to a definition of HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did in (a) and (b) above and three LLM systems were
>>>> able to figure out that the input to HHH(DD) does specify
>>>> the recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern
>>>> on their own without prompting.
>>>>
>>>>> If you then make a different definition, that is a new version of HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have to separate these; you can't refer to all of them as HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you try different ways of creating the halting decider, you
>>>>> have have HHH1, HHH2, HHH3.
>>>>>
>>>>> The author of DD studies each of these and replicates its logic,
>>>>> embedding it into DD.
>>>>>
>>>>> This activity gives rise to DD1, DD2, DD3, ...
>>>>>
>>>>> DD1 proves that HH1 is not a universal halting decider.
>>>>> DD2 proves that HH2 is not a universal halting decider.
>>>>> DD3 proves that HH3 is not a universal halting decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> And so on. For every halting decider design that you finalize and 
>>>>> commit
>>>>> to, a test case is easily produced which shows that it does not decide
>>>>> the halting of all computations.
>>>>>
>>>>> That creates a simple and convincing inductive argument that there
>>>>> doesn't exist a univeral halting decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When HHH(DD) is executed that this begins simulating
>>>> DD that calls HHH(DD) that begins simulating DD that
>>>> calls HHH(DD) again.
>>>
>>> OK and so if, in that recursive tower of HHH invocations, if one of the
>>> HHH suddenly behaves differently and breaks the pattern, that HHH is not
>>> the same as the previous HHH.
>>>
>>> That HHH and the previous HHH have the same external name in your UTM
>>> system, but that doesn't make them the same.
>>>
>>> We can only be sure that two procedures in a language like C are
>>> functions if their only inputs are are their arguments and compile time
>>> constants, and if none of their inputs ever mutate in between or during
>>> invocations.
>>>
>>> I.e. f(x) is not a function invocation if x is a pointer
>>> to something that is changing, so that two calls f(x); f(x)
>>> do not actually operate on the same input.
>>>
>>> Turing machines are pure functions in that they depend only on their
>>> tape. The tape processing mechanism is destructive, but nothing external
>>> meddles with the tape, each machine has its own tape not shared with
>>> any other machines, and the tape is reset to its original content for
>>> each simulation of the machine.
>>>
>>> Invocations of prodcedures that are not pure functions are not
>>> Turing computations. (I.e. are not instance of the material that the
>>> Halting Theorem is about.)
>>>
>>>> Three different LLM systems figured out that the execution
>>>> trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH does match the
>>>> *recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
>>>
>>> We all agree that there is a recursive non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>
>>
>> *By "we all" you are only actually including yourself and myself*
>> Everyone else here has consistently denied or dodged that point
>> for the last three years. That is why I needed to pull in some
>> experts in C.
>>
> 
> If you can read, you will see that Kaz refers here to the HHH that does 
> not abort.

COUNTER-FACTUAL

THIS IS THE CONTEXT

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) *Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern*:
      abort simulation and return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.

On 8/14/2025 12:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
 > On 2025-08-13, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
 > *We all agree that there is a recursive non-halting behavior pattern*
 >
 >>      This creates an infinite regress — HHH cannot finish
 >>      simulating DD() because to simulate it, it must simulate
 >>      itself again, and again, and again…
 >
 > Since DD calls HHH, if HHH doesn't finish, DD is non-terminating.
 > That's the correct answer. HHH not terminating means it doesn't
 > calculate the correct answer.
 >
 > *It's possible for HHH to terminate and return an answer to DD*


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web