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

Groups > comp.software-eng > #3420

Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ]

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/1/2021 9:44 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> 
>> Ĥ.qx applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts [UNLESS] it aborts its simulation,
>> not very hard at all for people that care about truth as opposed to
>> and contrast with winning an argument.
> 
> (correction added from your own follow-up)
> 
> Ĥ.qx applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.  It halts in rejecting state Ĥ.qn.  There
> is no dispute about this fact from you or anyone else.  The /reason/ it
> halts is interesting to you, but /not/ to anyone else.
> 
> The facts remain: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes a halting computation and you were
> flat-out wrong to say that is does not.  And H (the machine embedded in
> Ĥ at Ĥ.qx) is wrong to reject the string for that reason.  You will
> never admit either mistake.
> 
> That you are wrong is so blinding obvious that any paper you write about
> the theorem will go in the editor's bin in seconds.  (Unless he or she
> decides it's worth pinning on the staff room notice board for fun.)
> 

The reason that I created the x86utm operating system was to enable 
every single detail of the halting problem to be specified at the high 
level of abstraction of C/x86 so that people don't merely imagine 
details that are not true.

When we examine the x86 execution trace of the simulation of the input 
to H(P,P) we can determine that unless H aborts its simulation that its 
input never halts.

Those that take the time to analyze this realize that it is a reasonable 
criterion measure of never halting. Those only interested in winning an 
argument that don't give a rat's ass for truth never notice this.

These same people reject that the simulation of P(P) meets the following 
criteria because they simply don't bother to check, their entire focus 
is on rebuttal thus verifying that I am correct is off the table.

The infinite recursion detection criteria are met by the above execution 
trace:
(a) P calls H twice in sequence from the same machine address.
(b) With the same parameters: (P,P) to H.
(c) With no conditional branch or indexed jump instructions in the 
execution trace of P.
(d) We know that there are no return instructions in H because we know 
that H is in pure simulation mode.




-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

Back to comp.software-eng | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 11:47 -0500
  Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 08:28 -0500
    Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 23:00 -0500
      Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:24 -0500
        Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:08 -0500
        Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 16:48 -0500
  Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 10:05 -0500
    Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 21:53 -0500
    Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:23 -0500
      Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 20:42 -0500
        Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:05 -0500
        Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:20 -0500
      Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:25 -0500
  Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 09:15 -0500
    Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:34 -0500
    Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 11:32 -0500

csiph-web