Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85176 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-07-14 14:19 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-07-15 13:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 14:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 20:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 15:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 23:30 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 07:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 01:46 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:48 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 13:06 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 15:32 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:18 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:58 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 17:03 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:04 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:04 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:11 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:28 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:33 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:27 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-07-15 19:37 +0000
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:53 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:03 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:06 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:23 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:39 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:10 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:14 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:20 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:39 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 23:05 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 15:43 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 23:47 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-16 00:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:22 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:44 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:59 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 20:59 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 23:17 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 22:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 11:41 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:58 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 19:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 17:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:44 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 17:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <bigdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 22:42 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <Big.Dick@olcott.crap> - 2022-07-15 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:36 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:12 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 21:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:39 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 00:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 00:59 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:38 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:36 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 08:33 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:21 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 13:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 21:53 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:09 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:16 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:32 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:45 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:46 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:45 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:07 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:25 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:15 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 17:24 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:53 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 00:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:22 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:29 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:14 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:11 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:19 -0700
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 22:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v_6dnbs3CeUKqE__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85339 |
On 7/15/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/15/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/15/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/15/22 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c
>>>>>> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86
>>>>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Halt7.c
>>>>>
>>>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK
>>>>> explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the linking
>>>>> phase of the build.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly
>>>> execute the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My guess is that since H is built in, it doesn't actually need to
>>> meet the definition of "a program" for the halt decider, so you can't
>>> build P the way you are SUPPOSED to a give it its own copy of H?
>>>
>>> Note, the code of P without the actual code of H fails to actually
>>> meet the definition of a program or computation, so you whole
>>> arguement starts off on shaky grounds.
>>
>> H is not built in. The x86utm operating system is built in.
>> H and P are both essentially user code invoked through main().
>>
>
> So, where does H come for the COEF file, since it isn't in the file with P?
H and P are in the same source file, that is compiled as an object file.
The object file is the input to x86utm.exe.
>
> Is is actually POSSIBLE to include in P its own copy of H, seperate from
> the one trying to decide it (and that behaves identically?)
>
> Note: If you H gets its "address" from its execution, then that becomes
> an "input" to it, and makes it NOT the equivalent of the Turing Machine
u32 H(ptr P, ptr I)
{
HERE:
u32 Address_of_H; // 2022-06-17
__asm lea eax, HERE // 2022-06-18
__asm sub eax, 6 // 2022-06-18
__asm mov Address_of_H, eax // 2022-06-18
> it is supposed to be. This is one point where the requirements of a
> Computation in Computtion Theory are a bit stricter than "Software
> Engineering" concept of a "Pure Function", Computation theory requires
> that ALL COPIES of a Computaton behave the same, while the concept of a
> pure function dosn't always require copies to act the same.
None-the-less if computer science says the a function called in infinite
recursion must return to its caller or that a halt decider must report
on something besides the actual behavior actually specified by its
actual inputs THEN COMPUTER SCIENCE IS WRONG !!!
--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 06:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <HGwAK.52440$iR.37950@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #85340 |
On 7/15/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/15/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/22 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c
>>>>>>> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for
>>>>>>> x86
>>>>>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Halt7.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK
>>>>>> explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the
>>>>>> linking phase of the build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly
>>>>> execute the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that since H is built in, it doesn't actually need to
>>>> meet the definition of "a program" for the halt decider, so you
>>>> can't build P the way you are SUPPOSED to a give it its own copy of H?
>>>>
>>>> Note, the code of P without the actual code of H fails to actually
>>>> meet the definition of a program or computation, so you whole
>>>> arguement starts off on shaky grounds.
>>>
>>> H is not built in. The x86utm operating system is built in.
>>> H and P are both essentially user code invoked through main().
>>>
>>
>> So, where does H come for the COEF file, since it isn't in the file
>> with P?
>
> H and P are in the same source file, that is compiled as an object file.
> The object file is the input to x86utm.exe.
>
>>
>> Is is actually POSSIBLE to include in P its own copy of H, seperate
>> from the one trying to decide it (and that behaves identically?)
>>
>> Note: If you H gets its "address" from its execution, then that
>> becomes an "input" to it, and makes it NOT the equivalent of the
>> Turing Machine
>
>
> u32 H(ptr P, ptr I)
> {
> HERE:
> u32 Address_of_H; // 2022-06-17
> __asm lea eax, HERE // 2022-06-18
> __asm sub eax, 6 // 2022-06-18
> __asm mov Address_of_H, eax // 2022-06-18
>
>> it is supposed to be. This is one point where the requirements of a
>> Computation in Computtion Theory are a bit stricter than "Software
>> Engineering" concept of a "Pure Function", Computation theory requires
>> that ALL COPIES of a Computaton behave the same, while the concept of
>> a pure function dosn't always require copies to act the same.
>
> None-the-less if computer science says the a function called in infinite
> recursion must return to its caller or that a halt decider must report
> on something besides the actual behavior actually specified by its
> actual inputs THEN COMPUTER SCIENCE IS WRONG !!!
>
Ok, so H claims to be a pure function, which means that it will always
do the same thing with the same input, which he is defined to be the two
pointers passed to it,
Since those values are exactly the same for the two calls, that from
main and from P, the sequence of instructions resulting from each will
be the same, and the results of each of those instructions the same.
That means that if the call from P ends in infinite recursion because
the path doesn't recognize the occurance of infinite recursion, then
neither will it do so from the call from main, and it will not return
the claim value. If it does recognize that condition from the call to
main, then it actually wasn't in infinte recursion from the call from P,
and thus is can (and will) return that same answer to P.
It HAS to do the same on the two calls, as EVERY instruction executed in
sequence on the two calls will be the same with the same inputs and
resulting in the same output.
If you want to claim that they differ, you need to show how that
happens, namely what is the first x86 instruction (or even C source
line) where the first difference occurs. Remember, until that point, all
the state will be the same so you have a single deterministic
instruction, with the same input doing two different things.
Until you can explain how that happens, you have the fundamental problem
that you are just assuming a behavior of H that is impossible, that one
call leads to an infinite recursion and the other doesn't.
The problem is that a recursion cycle doesn't have a start and an end,
but is actually a cycle that can be entered anywhere along it. If the P
calls H which simulates P is ACTUALLY an infinite cycle is can be
started with P calling H or with H simulating P, so the call from main
will ALSO put the H / P pair into infinite recursion. The ONLY way they
can be different is if H isn't actually a pure function.
Of course, we do have the fact that Main calls H(P,P) and by your
algorithm that H will return 0, just as when P calls H(P,P) it will also
return 0 and thus P will halt.
The only case that appears to be infinite recursive is the simulation of
its input by H, because H makes the FALSE ASSUMPTION that the copy of H
(which is exactly the same H as is making this decision) will act
differently then it actually does, and H thinks that H will never abort
its simulation.
Thus H gets the wrong answer because it makes an incorrect determination
of what its input does.
YOU try to get around this by claiming that the input to H(P,P) somehow
must not be representing P(P), but if so, then H and P are defined
incorrectly as the call to H in P is DEFINED to be asking about P(P), so
if that isn't what it means you aren't meeting your requirements. But
this is just your dishonest dodge to try to explain how your incorrect
answer is correct.
Maybe it is correct that the behavior of input to H(P,P) isn't the same
as behavior of P(P), but that means that H isn't a correct emulator of
its input, so can't be the actual source of the true of the behavior.
It is REQUIRED, for H to be an actual Halt Decider that the behavior of
however P calls H, for this case, represent P(P), so all you are doing
is admitting your whole case is just a fraud.
Either H is a fraud, or H got the wrong answer. Your choice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 10:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f4-dnZAhBJ5lSE__nZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85345 |
On 7/16/2022 5:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/15/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/15/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/15/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/22 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c
>>>>>>>> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1
>>>>>>>> for x86
>>>>>>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halt7.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK
>>>>>>> explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the
>>>>>>> linking phase of the build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly
>>>>>> execute the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that since H is built in, it doesn't actually need to
>>>>> meet the definition of "a program" for the halt decider, so you
>>>>> can't build P the way you are SUPPOSED to a give it its own copy of H?
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, the code of P without the actual code of H fails to actually
>>>>> meet the definition of a program or computation, so you whole
>>>>> arguement starts off on shaky grounds.
>>>>
>>>> H is not built in. The x86utm operating system is built in.
>>>> H and P are both essentially user code invoked through main().
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, where does H come for the COEF file, since it isn't in the file
>>> with P?
>>
>> H and P are in the same source file, that is compiled as an object file.
>> The object file is the input to x86utm.exe.
>>
>>>
>>> Is is actually POSSIBLE to include in P its own copy of H, seperate
>>> from the one trying to decide it (and that behaves identically?)
>>>
>>> Note: If you H gets its "address" from its execution, then that
>>> becomes an "input" to it, and makes it NOT the equivalent of the
>>> Turing Machine
>>
>>
>> u32 H(ptr P, ptr I)
>> {
>> HERE:
>> u32 Address_of_H; // 2022-06-17
>> __asm lea eax, HERE // 2022-06-18
>> __asm sub eax, 6 // 2022-06-18
>> __asm mov Address_of_H, eax // 2022-06-18
>>
>>> it is supposed to be. This is one point where the requirements of a
>>> Computation in Computtion Theory are a bit stricter than "Software
>>> Engineering" concept of a "Pure Function", Computation theory
>>> requires that ALL COPIES of a Computaton behave the same, while the
>>> concept of a pure function dosn't always require copies to act the same.
>>
>> None-the-less if computer science says the a function called in
>> infinite recursion must return to its caller or that a halt decider
>> must report on something besides the actual behavior actually
>> specified by its actual inputs THEN COMPUTER SCIENCE IS WRONG !!!
>>
>
> Ok, so H claims to be a pure function, which means that it will always
> do the same thing with the same input, which he is defined to be the two
> pointers passed to it,
>
> Since those values are exactly the same for the two calls, that from
> main and from P, the sequence of instructions resulting from each will
> be the same,
No, not all all.
main() { H(P,P) } begins the sequence sooner
than the H(P,P) that P invokes. // H CANNOT RETURN TO ITS SIMULATED P
No, not all all.
main() { P(P) } begins the sequence sooner
than the H(P,P) that P invokes. // H RETURNS TO ITS EXECUTED P
> and the results of each of those instructions the same.
>
1 + (2 × 3) = 7 not equal (1 + 2) × 3 = 9.
Because the order of operations is not the same the result is not the
same even though the exact same numbers are involved.
See this new post
On 7/16/2022 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
[P(P) halts because H(P,P) correctly determines that its input never halt]
--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 11:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t_AAK.488411$ntj.402670@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #85351 |
On 7/16/22 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/16/2022 5:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/15/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/15/22 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1
>>>>>>>>> for x86
>>>>>>>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK
>>>>>>>> explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the
>>>>>>>> linking phase of the build.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly
>>>>>>> execute the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that since H is built in, it doesn't actually need to
>>>>>> meet the definition of "a program" for the halt decider, so you
>>>>>> can't build P the way you are SUPPOSED to a give it its own copy
>>>>>> of H?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, the code of P without the actual code of H fails to actually
>>>>>> meet the definition of a program or computation, so you whole
>>>>>> arguement starts off on shaky grounds.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is not built in. The x86utm operating system is built in.
>>>>> H and P are both essentially user code invoked through main().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, where does H come for the COEF file, since it isn't in the file
>>>> with P?
>>>
>>> H and P are in the same source file, that is compiled as an object file.
>>> The object file is the input to x86utm.exe.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is is actually POSSIBLE to include in P its own copy of H, seperate
>>>> from the one trying to decide it (and that behaves identically?)
>>>>
>>>> Note: If you H gets its "address" from its execution, then that
>>>> becomes an "input" to it, and makes it NOT the equivalent of the
>>>> Turing Machine
>>>
>>>
>>> u32 H(ptr P, ptr I)
>>> {
>>> HERE:
>>> u32 Address_of_H; // 2022-06-17
>>> __asm lea eax, HERE // 2022-06-18
>>> __asm sub eax, 6 // 2022-06-18
>>> __asm mov Address_of_H, eax // 2022-06-18
>>>
>>>> it is supposed to be. This is one point where the requirements of a
>>>> Computation in Computtion Theory are a bit stricter than "Software
>>>> Engineering" concept of a "Pure Function", Computation theory
>>>> requires that ALL COPIES of a Computaton behave the same, while the
>>>> concept of a pure function dosn't always require copies to act the
>>>> same.
>>>
>>> None-the-less if computer science says the a function called in
>>> infinite recursion must return to its caller or that a halt decider
>>> must report on something besides the actual behavior actually
>>> specified by its actual inputs THEN COMPUTER SCIENCE IS WRONG !!!
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so H claims to be a pure function, which means that it will always
>> do the same thing with the same input, which he is defined to be the
>> two pointers passed to it,
>>
>> Since those values are exactly the same for the two calls, that from
>> main and from P, the sequence of instructions resulting from each will
>> be the same,
>
> No, not all all.
> main() { H(P,P) } begins the sequence sooner
> than the H(P,P) that P invokes. // H CANNOT RETURN TO ITS SIMULATED P
>
> No, not all all.
> main() { P(P) } begins the sequence sooner
> than the H(P,P) that P invokes. // H RETURNS TO ITS EXECUTED P
Right, when P(P) calls H(P,P) we KNOW that that H(P,P) will return the
value 0 to that P(P). (since you have declared that H(P,P) returns the
value 0 to main, and that H is a pure function).
Thus, a CORRECT emulation of P(P) calling H(P,P) must eventaully show
that H(P,P) returns 0 to that P(P).
The fact that H doesn't do this proves that either H is NOT doing a
complete and correct emulation or that H can't actually return the 0 to
main.
>
>> and the results of each of those instructions the same.
>>
>
> 1 + (2 × 3) = 7 not equal (1 + 2) × 3 = 9.
>
> Because the order of operations is not the same the result is not the
> same even though the exact same numbers are involved.
So, are you saying that the H called by P isn't the same H as called by
main?
Order of operations IS part of the definition of a program. This seems
to be just another of your Red Herrings to avoid answering.
H(P,P) will ALWAYS whether called by main, or P(P) or correctly emulated
do the same action, which can EITHER be returning 0, making P(P) Halting
and thus H returning the wrong value, or never returning, makeing H not
a decider.
If one of these does something different either H is NOT a pure function
as claimed, of if it is the simulation, proof that the simulation is NOT
complete and correct.
>
> See this new post
> On 7/16/2022 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> [P(P) halts because H(P,P) correctly determines that its input never halt]
>
>
Which is just as wrong, as has been explained many times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 16:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fb92a55-da59-4ed8-8061-23c406fa6d71n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85314 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:13:11 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 6:01 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:47:51 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> My solution isn't magic and I can explain it; in fact I already have:
> >> my proposal is novel, simple and to the point.
> >
> > I don't need you to explain anything.
> >
> > I need you to produce working implementations of all the relevant functions: P(), H() and simulate().
> > If H is calling simulate(P) to determine if P halts, then P will call simulate(P) also in order to be contrarian about its halting behavior.
> >
> > void P(void (*x)())
> > {
> > if (simulate(P))
> > infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> > return;
> > }
> That is not how the halting problem pathological inputs are specified.
>
> 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
>
> *THIS H HANDLES THAT CASE*
>
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider
>
> void P(ptr x)
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> }
>
>
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur Schopenhauer
Fuck it! Lets go full retard...
I've spent 50 years working on this pathological program and I've written a billion lines of code! Just because I don't want to publish the source code it doesn't mean P doesn't exist.
Any sufficiently competent engineer should be able to determine that P correctly simulates H!
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider
void P(ptr x); //simulating pathological program.
int main()
{
H(P, P);
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <W4CdnYek5r_QY0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85318 |
On 7/15/2022 6:34 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:13:11 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/15/2022 6:01 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:47:51 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> My solution isn't magic and I can explain it; in fact I already have:
>>>> my proposal is novel, simple and to the point.
>>>
>>> I don't need you to explain anything.
>>>
>>> I need you to produce working implementations of all the relevant functions: P(), H() and simulate().
>>> If H is calling simulate(P) to determine if P halts, then P will call simulate(P) also in order to be contrarian about its halting behavior.
>>>
>>> void P(void (*x)())
>>> {
>>> if (simulate(P))
>>> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
>>> return;
>>> }
>> That is not how the halting problem pathological inputs are specified.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> *THIS H HANDLES THAT CASE*
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider
>>
>> void P(ptr x)
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
>> }
>>
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> Fuck it! Lets go full retard...
>
> I've spent 50 years working on this pathological program and I've written a billion lines of code! Just because I don't want to publish the source code it doesn't mean P doesn't exist.
> Any sufficiently competent engineer should be able to determine that P correctly simulates H!
I will publish the code once it is validated that I am correct. I have
shared key details privately with two computer scientists in the field.
I have improved my words well enough the a leading computer scientist
extensively reviewed my work in 23 emails over two days.
I currently have two other computer scientists published in the field
that are reviewing my work. Although there are few computer scientists
that actively publish about the halting problem "termination analysis"
is a much broader field with numerous active researchers.
I am in this forum because fundamentally I am a C/C++ software engineer
and am best at presenting my findings in the language of C/C++ software
engineering.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 16:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6724027a-3baf-4df3-ac32-6a9c6c85464en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85323 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:55:13 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote: > I will publish the code once it is validated that I am correct. Same old bullshit, Pete. Same old bullshit. The linker will validate the correctness of your object files. But I suspect, you used the "/c" flag because you didn't like the error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <PdSdnUkn-brGnE__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85325 |
On 7/15/2022 6:58 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:55:13 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> I will publish the code once it is validated that I am correct.
>
> Same old bullshit, Pete. Same old bullshit.
>
> The linker will validate the correctness of your object files.
>
> But I suspect, you used the "/c" flag because you didn't like the error.
>
D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /arch:IA32 Halt7.c
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Halt7.c
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 14.16.27026.1
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
/out:Halt7.exe
Halt7.obj
D:>
D:\>dir halt7.*
Volume in drive D is New Volume
Volume Serial Number is XXXXXXXX
Directory of D:\
07/15/2022 05:38 PM 22,048 Halt7.c
07/15/2022 07:01 PM 83,968 Halt7.exe
07/15/2022 07:01 PM 77,433 Halt7.lst
07/15/2022 07:01 PM 9,334 Halt7.obj
4 File(s) 192,783 bytes
--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 17:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <038511f9-6d94-40ab-832e-d510a8c1e1can@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85327 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 2:08:14 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote: > 07/15/2022 05:38 PM 22,048 Halt7.c Pete, you are a fucking time-wasting idiot. The source code you are showing us is 210 bytes. The source code you are compiling is 22048 bytes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gZmAK.389346$vAW9.145674@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #85314 |
On 7/15/22 7:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 6:01 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:47:51 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> My solution isn't magic and I can explain it; in fact I already have:
>>> my proposal is novel, simple and to the point.
>>
>> I don't need you to explain anything.
>>
>> I need you to produce working implementations of all the relevant
>> functions: P(), H() and simulate().
>> If H is calling simulate(P) to determine if P halts, then P will call
>> simulate(P) also in order to be contrarian about its halting behavior.
>>
>> void P(void (*x)())
>> {
>> if (simulate(P))
>> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
>> return;
>> }
>
> That is not how the halting problem pathological inputs are specified.
>
> 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
>
> *THIS H HANDLES THAT CASE*
>
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider
>
> void P(ptr x)
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> }
>
>
Except that H(P,P) returns 0 saying P(P) will never Halt (return) but if
you run P(P) it halts.
Note, you claim that the behavior of the input to H(P,P) doesn't
represent the behavior of P(P) says you P is defined incorrectly, as it
is explicitly calling H(P,P) to ASK about P(P)
To Quote: do the opposite of what H predicts P will do.
THis means that H(P,P) *IS* asking about P(P) or your routines don't
meet that requirement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 17:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <06OdnbELIZ62ckz_nZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85309 |
On 7/15/2022 5:43 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:06:12 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> bool foo()
>> {
>> if (valid())
>> {
>> if (halts())
>> return true;
>> else
>> return false;
>> }
>> throw invalid();
>> }
>
> You seem really skilled and incredibly determined to confuse yourself with syntactic irrelevancies.
>
> Both implementations of halt() will produce an answer to the question "Does X halt?" if you just fill in the "magic-you-can't-explain" with the relevant logic.
>
> void halt(x){
> if(magic-you-can't-explain)
> throw yes();
> else
> throw no();
> }
>
> bool halt(x){
> if(magic-you-can't-explain)
> return true;
> else
> return false;
> }
That is my exact same critique of his idea:
Flibble's idea:
https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
| From | Big Dick <bigdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 22:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tasn8c$3abge$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #85300 |
On 15/07/2022 22:27, Skep Dick wrote: > Yeah, your program is answering a completely different question to the one it needs to answer. > Yes. We need the answer to a very simple question: Who has the biggest Dick in these newsgroups: Flibble, Olcott Skep Dick Big Dick When we have the answer to this then we can decide what can really Halt the crapware that is spouted from Olcott's mouth. He is likes sucking small boys cocks but does he also swallow the sperms? That also needs to be answered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Big Dick <Big.Dick@olcott.crap> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 21:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tasiff$3a190$1@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #85284 |
On 15/07/2022 21:06, Skep Dick wrote: > And I am refuting your refutation. > > By showing you that if H can simulate P (with any input) to determine its result, then P can also simulate H (with any input) to determine its result. > > But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything. But I have the biggest dick and I can prove it without halting anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715194949.00005574@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85263 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:31:50 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 7/15/2022 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:57:53 -0500
> >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 7/15/2022 12:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:39:31 -0500
> >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 7/15/2022 12:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 18:08:22 +0100
> >>>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:00:59 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 11:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:58:14 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:07:36 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 9:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:19:59 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 7:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:46:23 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 1:23 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:41:06 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 5:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 16:02:35 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:02:21 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 2:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 14:19:38 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an explanation of a key new insight
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the halting problem provided in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of software engineering. Technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer science terms are explained using
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering terms. No knowledge of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is required.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is based on fully operational software
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed in the x86utm operating system. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86utm operating system (based on an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excellent open source x86 emulator) was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created to study the details of the halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proof counter-examples at the much
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher level of abstraction of C/x86.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P)); }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H(P,P) simulates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input we can see that: (1) Function H()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is called from P(). (2) With the same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments to H(). (3) With no instructions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in P preceding its invocation of H(P,P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above shows that the simulated P cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. Because H can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the same (1)(2)(3) that we see H aborts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation of P and rejects P as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is the problem of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determining, from a description of an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the program will finish running, or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to run forever. Alan Turing proved
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 1936 that a general algorithm to solve
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem for all possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program- input pairs cannot exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and P implement the exact pathological
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to each other as described
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above. Because H(P,P) does handle this case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above halting problem undecidable input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> template has been refuted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When this halt deciding principle
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understood to be correct* A halt decider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must compute the mapping from its inputs to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an accept or reject state on the basis of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior that is actually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by these inputs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then (by logical necessity) this implements
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that principle* Every simulating halt decider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that correctly simulates its input until it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly predicts that this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never terminate normally, correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejects this input as non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *H is a Pure function*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus implements a *Computable function*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus H is Turing computable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You forgot to mention infinite recursion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I suppose is progress.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have proved that H(P,P) == 0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have shown that H/P does implement the HP's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible input" template.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore I have refuted all of the halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proofs that rely on this template.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equating pathological input with non-halting is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous: you are only doing that because your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken solution treats it as "infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursion". There is no recursion in [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] and the HP proofs based on it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no recursion in any of the conventional
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs only because no one ever previously
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered to fully examine how a simulating halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider would address these otherwise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible" inputs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have shown that a simulating halt decider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needn't be recursive in nature:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You sure do make it easy to review your work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "When the simulator detects the call to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H in P it forks the simulation into a non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an infinite set of cases where this overly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplistic criteria gets the wrong answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is neither an honest review or any kind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal: I have told you before: assertions made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim there are an infinite number of cases
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it gets the wrong answer then it shouldn't be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too hard for to provide ONE case backing up your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static int count = 3;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count--;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (!count) goto exit;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exit:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope; you seem to have forgotten that my decider is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not recursive in nature: my decider will correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that that input is pathological so will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal an exception.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above terminates normally so your decider gets the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a pathological input so neither halts nor doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> halt: pathological input is INVALID so the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "answer" is to signal an exception.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So you don't know how static variables work?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am not surprised.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> static int count = 0;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> if (count++ >= 2) goto exit;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exit:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P,P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _Pm()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000141e](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000141f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001421](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001424](05) a100000000 mov eax,[00000000]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001429](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000142c](06) 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001432](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001435](06) 890d00000000 mov [00000000],ecx
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000143b](04) 837dfc02 cmp dword [ebp-04],+02
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000143f](02) 7c02 jl 00001443
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001441](02) eb1b jmp 0000145e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001443](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001446](01) 52 push edx
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001447](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000144a](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000144b](05) e8defcffff call 0000112e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001450](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001453](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001456](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000145a](02) 7402 jz 0000145e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000145c](02) ebfe jmp 0000145c
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000145e](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001460](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001461](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0068) [00001461]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000146e](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000146f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001471](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001476](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000147b](05) e8aefcffff call 0000112e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001480](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001483](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001484](05) 685f050000 push 0000055f
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001489](05) e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000148e](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001491](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001493](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001494](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001494]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== =========
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ============= [0000146e][00102462][00000000] 55
> >>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp [0000146f][00102462][00000000] 8bec
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp [00001471][0010245e][0000141e] 681e140000
> >>>>>>>>>>>> push 0000141e [00001476][0010245a][0000141e] 681e140000
> >>>>>>>>>>>> push 0000141e [0000147b][00102456][00001480] e8aefcffff
> >>>>>>>>>>>> call 0000112e
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11250e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Address_of_H:112e
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000141e][001124fa][001124fe] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000141f][001124fa][001124fe] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001421][001124f2][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001424][001124f2][90909090] a100000000 mov
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eax,[00000000] [00001429][001124f2][90909090] 8945fc
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mov [ebp-04],eax [0000142c][001124f2][90909090]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001432][001124f2][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001435][001124f2][90909090] 890d00000000 mov
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00000000],ecx [0000143b][001124f2][90909090] 837dfc02
> >>>>>>>>>>>> cmp dword [ebp-04],+02 [0000143f][001124f2][90909090]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 7c02 jl 00001443 [00001441][001124f2][90909090] eb1b
> >>>>>>>>>>>> jmp 0000145e [0000145e][001124fa][001124fe] 8be5
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mov esp,ebp [00001460][001124fe][00001217] 5d
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pop ebp [00001461][00112502][0000141e] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>> H: End Simulation Input Terminated Normally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001480][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001483][0010245e][00000001] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001484][0010245a][0000055f] 685f050000 push 0000055f
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001489][0010245a][0000055f] e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Input_Halts = 1
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000148e][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001491][00102462][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001493][00102466][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001494][0010246a][00000000] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(1317) == 20 Pages
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For this particular stack trace I notice that the function
> >>>>>>>>>>> symbol at the top of it is Pm not P which suggests to me
> >>>>>>>>>>> one of two things:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I already had a P so I renamed it to Pm so it would not
> >>>>>>>>>> disturb my existing code. When I changed all the Pm
> >>>>>>>>>> references to your name I forgot one.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Then I suggest you check the output of compilation/linking
> >>>>>>>>> is actually initializing static variables correctly. Are
> >>>>>>>>> you even using a linker or are you just executing an object
> >>>>>>>>> file? Static data normally goes into a separate data
> >>>>>>>>> segment during the linking process.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I haven't used static data in such a long time that I forgot
> >>>>>>>> the compiler does not allocate any space for static
> >>>>>>>> variables unless they have been initialized to a non-zero
> >>>>>>>> value.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> void Pm(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> static int count = 0x777;
> >>>>>>>> if (count++ > 0x777) goto exit;
> >>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>> exit:
> >>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Pm, (u32)Pm));
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _Pm()
> >>>>>>>> [00000a1a](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00000a1b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00000a1d](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [00000a20](05) a107030000 mov eax,[00000307]
> >>>>>>>> [00000a25](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> >>>>>>>> [00000a28](06) 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> >>>>>>>> [00000a2e](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>>> [00000a31](06) 890d07030000 mov [00000307],ecx
> >>>>>>>> [00000a37](07) 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>>>>>>> [00000a3e](02) 7e02 jng 00000a42
> >>>>>>>> [00000a40](02) eb1b jmp 00000a5d
> >>>>>>>> [00000a42](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00000a45](01) 52 push edx
> >>>>>>>> [00000a46](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00000a49](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [00000a4a](05) e8ebfdffff call 0000083a // call H
> >>>>>>>> [00000a4f](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [00000a52](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> >>>>>>>> [00000a55](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> >>>>>>>> [00000a59](02) 7402 jz 00000a5d
> >>>>>>>> [00000a5b](02) ebfe jmp 00000a5b
> >>>>>>>> [00000a5d](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00000a5f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00000a60](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0071) [00000a60]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>> [00000a6a](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00000a6b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00000a6d](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push address
> >>>>>>>> of P [00000a72](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push
> >>>>>>>> address of P [00000a77](05) e8befdffff call 0000083a //
> >>>>>>>> call H [00000a7c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [00000a7f](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [00000a80](05) 680b030000 push 0000030b
> >>>>>>>> [00000a85](05) e8d0f8ffff call 0000035a
> >>>>>>>> [00000a8a](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [00000a8d](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>> [00000a8f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00000a90](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00000a90]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a6a][0010137b][00000000] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a6b][0010137b][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a6d][00101377][00000a1a] 681a0a0000 push
> >>>>>>>> 00000a1a ...[00000a72][00101373][00000a1a] 681a0a0000
> >>>>>>>> push 00000a1a ...[00000a77][0010136f][00000a7c] e8befdffff
> >>>>>>>> call 0000083a New slave_stack at:201427
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored
> >>>>>>>> at:21142f ...[00000a1a][0021141b][0021141f] 55
> >>>>>>>> push ebp ...[00000a1b][0021141b][0021141f] 8bec
> >>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp ...[00000a1d][00211413][90909090] 83ec08
> >>>>>>>> sub esp,+08 ...[00000a20][00211413][90909090] a107030000
> >>>>>>>> mov eax,[00000307] ...[00000a25][00211413][90909090] 8945fc
> >>>>>>>> mov [ebp-04],eax ...[00000a28][00211413][90909090]
> >>>>>>>> 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a2e][00211413][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a31][00211413][90909090] 890d07030000 mov
> >>>>>>>> [00000307],ecx ...[00000a37][00211413][90909090]
> >>>>>>>> 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a3e][00211413][90909090] 7e02 jng
> >>>>>>>> 00000a42 ...[00000a42][00211413][90909090] 8b5508
> >>>>>>>> mov edx,[ebp+08] ...[00000a45][0021140f][00000a1a] 52 push
> >>>>>>>> edx // push address of P
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a46][0021140f][00000a1a] 8b4508 mov
> >>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000a49][0021140b][00000a1a] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> // push address of P ...[00000a4a][00211407][00000a4f]
> >>>>>>>> e8ebfdffff call 0000083a // call H New slave_stack
> >>>>>>>> at:24be4f ...[00000a1a][0025be43][0025be47] 55
> >>>>>>>> push ebp ...[00000a1b][0025be43][0025be47] 8bec
> >>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp ...[00000a1d][0025be3b][90909090] 83ec08
> >>>>>>>> sub esp,+08 ...[00000a20][0025be3b][90909090] a107030000
> >>>>>>>> mov eax,[00000307] ...[00000a25][0025be3b][90909090] 8945fc
> >>>>>>>> mov [ebp-04],eax ...[00000a28][0025be3b][90909090]
> >>>>>>>> 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a2e][0025be3b][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a31][0025be3b][90909090] 890d07030000 mov
> >>>>>>>> [00000307],ecx ...[00000a37][0025be3b][90909090]
> >>>>>>>> 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a3e][0025be3b][90909090] 7e02 jng
> >>>>>>>> 00000a42 ...[00000a40][0025be3b][90909090] eb1b
> >>>>>>>> jmp 00000a5d // jmp to exit
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a5d][0025be43][0025be47] 8be5 mov
> >>>>>>>> esp,ebp ...[00000a5f][0025be47][00000904] 5d
> >>>>>>>> pop ebp ...[00000a60][0025be4b][00000a1a] c3
> >>>>>>>> ret ...[00000a7c][0010137b][00000000] 83c408 add
> >>>>>>>> esp,+08 ...[00000a7f][00101377][00000001] 50
> >>>>>>>> push eax ...[00000a80][00101373][0000030b] 680b030000
> >>>>>>>> push 0000030b ---[00000a85][00101373][0000030b] e8d0f8ffff
> >>>>>>>> call 0000035a Input_Halts = 1
> >>>>>>>> ...[00000a8a][0010137b][00000000] 83c408 add
> >>>>>>>> esp,+08 ...[00000a8d][0010137b][00000000] 33c0
> >>>>>>>> xor eax,eax ...[00000a8f][0010137f][00100000] 5d
> >>>>>>>> pop ebp ...[00000a90][00101383][00000004] c3
> >>>>>>>> ret Number of Instructions Executed(27278)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Still seems wrong: post increment of the static variable
> >>>>>>> should ensure that it does NOT goto exit but instead should
> >>>>>>> call H which should presumably cause your "infinite recursion
> >>>>>>> detected" bollocks to manifest.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> OK, I've looked at your assembly trace and it is recursing
> >>>>>> into Pm from H and then halting but I am not sure what you are
> >>>>>> trying to prove? Again [Strachey 1965] and associated proofs
> >>>>>> are not recursive in nature.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (1) H cannot correctly determine the halt status of the HP
> >>>>> counter-examples unless H is a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (2) The claim of the halting problem proofs is that no H in the
> >>>>> universe can possibly correctly determine the halt status of its
> >>>>> corresponding pathological input.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (3) H(P,P) does correctly determine that its correponding
> >>>>> pathological input would never halt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (4) It is ridiculously stupid of you to say that [Strachey 1965]
> >>>>> does not specify infinitely recursive simulation when it is an
> >>>>> easily verified fact that when Strachey T <is> a simulating halt
> >>>>> decider that Strachey P <does> specify infinitely recursive
> >>>>> simulation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does not say this directly in [Strachey 1965] only because no
> >>>>> one ever previously bothered to fully examine the effect of a
> >>>>> simulating halt decider on the HP's pathological inputs.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see I have to repeat myself yet again: a simulating halt
> >>>> decider needn't be recursive in nature and I have sketched a
> >>>> design of such a halt decider:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> You are incorrect to claim an equivalence between pathological
> >>>> input and non-halting.
> >>>>
> >>>> /Flibble
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 19 When the simulator detects the call to H in P it forks the
> >>> simulation 20 into a non-halting branch (returning 0 to P) and a
> >>> halting branch 21 (returning 1 to P)
> >>>
> >>> Software engineers at the low end of technical competence may not
> >>> fully comprehend the common knowledge that:
> >>>
> >>> Whenever a function is called in what is essentially infinite
> >>> recursion this function cannot possibly correctly return any
> >>> value to its caller. You don't seem to understand that.
> >>
> >> Why are you so fucking obtuse? My forking simulating decider IS NOT
> >> RECURSIVE.
> >
> > It is directly disobeying the actual behavior specified by the
> > actual input by returning a value to a function that called it in
> > infinite recursion.
> >
> >
>
> Even if we did accept that your pathological self-reference detector
> is valid it is only a copycat of my idea and it provides a weaker
> result. It answers: I don't know and mine answers: non-halting.
Except if it returns an answer of non-halting there is no way to
differentiate between a non-halting non-pathological input and a
non-halting pathological input. Which is a mistake.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <yTmAK.516643$5fVf.138346@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #85242 |
On 7/15/22 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >> > > So you don't know how static variables work? > I am not surprised. > And you don't understand that static variable don't pass between seperate instance of a computation? That violates the function of only its input rule. A C function in its implementation of a computation might be able to use a static variable, as long as every "external" call acts the same independent of the state of that static. For instance, a function could use a static to memoize inputs/answers to make itself more efficient without problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <W4CdnYak5r9dY0z_nZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85319 |
On 7/15/2022 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/15/22 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >> >> So you don't know how static variables work? >> I am not surprised. >> > > And you don't understand that static variable don't pass between > seperate instance of a computation? > > That violates the function of only its input rule. > I know that and it took me nine months to overcome that issue. Because H is a Pure function1 it would seem to implement a Computable function2 thus would be Turing computable. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > A C function in its implementation of a computation might be able to use > a static variable, as long as every "external" call acts the same > independent of the state of that static. > > For instance, a function could use a static to memoize inputs/answers to > make itself more efficient without problem. -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 21:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l9oAK.32297$8f2.31926@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #85324 |
On 7/15/22 7:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2022 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/15/22 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>> >>> So you don't know how static variables work? >>> I am not surprised. >>> >> >> And you don't understand that static variable don't pass between >> seperate instance of a computation? >> >> That violates the function of only its input rule. >> > > I know that and it took me nine months to overcome that issue. > > Because H is a Pure function1 it would seem to implement a Computable > function2 thus would be Turing computable. > > 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function > > 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function So, ALL calls to H(P,P) behave the same? From YOUR reference: > the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or input streams) That means that when P(P) calls H(P,P) it gets the exact same response as when main calls H(P,P)? (so since you claim the H(P,P) called by main gets "correctly" returned a 0, the the call in P will do the same). Remember, because P(P) calls H(P,P) as its way to ask H about the behavipor of itself applied to its input, the behavior of the input to H(P,P) must be the same as the behavior of P(P) or you P isn't defined right. Since P(P) has been show to Halt when H(P,P) returns 0, the behavior of the input to H(P,P) has been shown to halt when H(P,P) returns 0, and thus that returned answer is incorrect, or you P hasn't been defined correctly. > >> A C function in its implementation of a computation might be able to >> use a static variable, as long as every "external" call acts the same >> independent of the state of that static. >> >> For instance, a function could use a static to memoize inputs/answers >> to make itself more efficient without problem. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h72dnSi6M6KTi0__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85331 |
On 7/15/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/15/22 7:56 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/15/2022 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/15/22 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you don't know how static variables work? >>>> I am not surprised. >>>> >>> >>> And you don't understand that static variable don't pass between >>> seperate instance of a computation? >>> >>> That violates the function of only its input rule. >>> >> >> I know that and it took me nine months to overcome that issue. >> >> Because H is a Pure function1 it would seem to implement a Computable >> function2 thus would be Turing computable. >> >> 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function >> >> 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > > So, ALL calls to H(P,P) behave the same? From YOUR reference: > >> the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no >> variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable >> reference arguments or input streams) > That means that when P(P) calls H(P,P) it gets the exact same response > as when main calls H(P,P)? (so since you claim the H(P,P) called by main > gets "correctly" returned a 0, the the call in P will do the same). That you (and Flibble) continue to fail to understand the very basic software engineering principle that no function called in infinite recursion ever returns to its caller (even if computer science textbooks command that it must) causes me to ignore many of your posts. -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 21:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <zMoAK.478076$J0r9.469596@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #85333 |
On 7/15/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/15/22 7:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/15/2022 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/15/22 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So you don't know how static variables work? >>>>> I am not surprised. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And you don't understand that static variable don't pass between >>>> seperate instance of a computation? >>>> >>>> That violates the function of only its input rule. >>>> >>> >>> I know that and it took me nine months to overcome that issue. >>> >>> Because H is a Pure function1 it would seem to implement a Computable >>> function2 thus would be Turing computable. >>> >>> 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function >>> >>> 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >> >> So, ALL calls to H(P,P) behave the same? From YOUR reference: >> >>> the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no >>> variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable >>> reference arguments or input streams) >> That means that when P(P) calls H(P,P) it gets the exact same response >> as when main calls H(P,P)? (so since you claim the H(P,P) called by >> main gets "correctly" returned a 0, the the call in P will do the same). > That you (and Flibble) continue to fail to understand the very basic > software engineering principle that no function called in infinite > recursion ever returns to its caller (even if computer science textbooks > command that it must) causes me to ignore many of your posts. > Then you admit that H isn't actually a pure function, as a pure function MUST behave the same for ALL calls to it. If ONE usage results in infinte recursion, ALL usages result in infinite recursion and thus H(P,P) never returns to ANYBODY. The problem YOU fail to see is that H ISN'T called in infinite recursion because your H is smart enough to break it (but not smart enough to get the right answer), and P gets those smarts by calling H. It goes back to you using a BROKEN rule to detect infinite recursion, which you can NOT provide a source that agrees with your usage of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rZednY5F5Khth0__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85334 |
On 7/15/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/15/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/15/2022 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/15/22 7:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/15/2022 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/15/22 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So you don't know how static variables work? >>>>>> I am not surprised. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And you don't understand that static variable don't pass between >>>>> seperate instance of a computation? >>>>> >>>>> That violates the function of only its input rule. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I know that and it took me nine months to overcome that issue. >>>> >>>> Because H is a Pure function1 it would seem to implement a >>>> Computable function2 thus would be Turing computable. >>>> >>>> 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function >>>> >>>> 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>> >>> So, ALL calls to H(P,P) behave the same? From YOUR reference: >>> >>>> the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no >>>> variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable >>>> reference arguments or input streams) >>> That means that when P(P) calls H(P,P) it gets the exact same >>> response as when main calls H(P,P)? (so since you claim the H(P,P) >>> called by main gets "correctly" returned a 0, the the call in P will >>> do the same). >> That you (and Flibble) continue to fail to understand the very basic >> software engineering principle that no function called in infinite >> recursion ever returns to its caller (even if computer science >> textbooks command that it must) causes me to ignore many of your posts. >> > > Then you admit that H isn't actually a pure function, as a pure function > MUST behave the same for ALL calls to it. A pure function is not allowed to return to any caller that calls it in infinite recursion. It is ridiculously stupid of you to think otherwise. In computer programming, a pure function is a function that has the following properties:[1][2] (1) the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or input streams), and (2) the function application has no side effects (no mutation of local static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or input/output streams). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function -- Copyright 2022 Pete 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]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web