Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.software-eng > #2966 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-05 11:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-07-07 18:04 -0500 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 89 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.software-eng
How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 11:28 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 14:30 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (Ben's double-talk does not work) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 16:40 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (correct halt deciding criterion measure) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 19:04 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (correct halt deciding criterion measure) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 20:01 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (correct halt deciding criterion measure) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 21:37 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (correct halt deciding criterion measure) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 22:06 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (correct halt deciding criterion measure) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-06 10:59 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (correct halt deciding criterion measure) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-06 11:33 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V2) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-06 21:00 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 11:24 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 13:10 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 14:51 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 20:24 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 21:04 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) [ independent v dependent variables ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-08 07:46 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) [ independent v dependent variables ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-08 22:54 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-08 11:24 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-08 20:07 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-08 21:21 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-08 21:36 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 08:59 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-09 18:06 +0100
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 12:47 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-09 20:16 +0100
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 14:24 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-09 22:08 +0100
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 16:13 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 10:00 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 16:15 +0100
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 10:21 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-10 16:25 +0100
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 11:08 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ]( You and I ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 11:42 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-07-10 15:19 -0700
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2021-07-11 00:29 +0000
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ strachey example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 19:57 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 17:29 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 18:31 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 19:33 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 20:00 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ suspended not halted ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 09:14 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 09:30 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ]( Flibble agrees ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-11 14:47 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-12 17:18 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 08:41 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 09:42 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:02 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 15:52 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 16:47 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 22:12 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 09:17 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 19:42 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 19:52 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ](and Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-15 22:03 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ](and Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-16 21:48 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ](and Flibble) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-19 10:11 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:33 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 10:43 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 17:21 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 20:11 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 20:52 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 21:14 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-13 21:42 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 15:53 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-14 10:07 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 22:18 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 23:01 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 23:45 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 09:25 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ type mismatch error ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 10:32 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V4) [ type mismatch error ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-10 11:19 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 20:31 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 21:07 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-08 08:29 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) [ global halt decider ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-09 09:02 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (Ben's double-talk does not work) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-05 23:15 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (Ben's double-talk does not work) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-06 10:26 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (Ben's double-talk does not work) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-06 21:18 +0100
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (Ben's double-talk does not work) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-06 15:41 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (Ben's double-talk does not work) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-06 23:18 +0100
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 09:47 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 20:15 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2021-07-07 14:18 +0200
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 13:43 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-07 19:01 +0000
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 14:39 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 17:05 -0500
Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? [ proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-07 18:04 -0500
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-06 23:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (Ben's double-talk does not work) |
| Message-ID | <20210706231852.0000320a@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #2982 |
On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:41:09 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/2021 3:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 23:15:06 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/5/2021 6:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/5/2021 4:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> For anyone interested, here's the answer to the question posed
> >>>>> in the subject line: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We know that H(M,I) == 0 (false) is correct if, and only if,
> >>>>> M(I) is not a halting (finite) computation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But PO rejects the very definition of a halting decider: a TM
> >>>>> that accepts exactly those strings that represent finite
> >>>>> computations, and rejects all others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Instead, a PO "Other-Halting" decider also rejects some strings
> >>>>> that represent finite computations, specifically P(P) where P is
> >>>>> hat(H), a function defined in terms of H like this:
> >>>>> def hat(h):
> >>>>> def p(x):
> >>>>> if h(x, x):
> >>>>> while True: pass
> >>>>> return p
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For a POOH decider, H(hat(H), hat(H)) = False is correct,
> >>>>> despite hat(H)(hat(H)) being a halting computation. No one
> >>>>> except PO is interested in the POOH problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On the other hand, everyone is interested in halting, but the
> >>>>> computation D(hat(D), hat(D)) shows that no D computes the
> >>>>> halting function.
> >>>>
> >>>> Try and get your double-talk around this:
> >>>>
> >>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>> {
> >>>> u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
> >>>> if (Input_Halts)
> >>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> P((u32)P);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> Because the above computation must be aborted at some point or it
> >>>> never halts the above computation is a non-halting computation.
> >>>
> >>> It is a halting computation because it halts. The fact that P(P)
> >>> halts is not in dispute.
> >>>
> >>> Nor is it a matter of dispute that your POOH decider, H, returns
> >>> H(P,P) == 0 and so P(P) is a non-POOH computation. The only
> >>> dispute is that you think someone might be interested in the POOH
> >>> problem.
> >>>
> >>> (For obvious reasons, you resist giving the property you claim H
> >>> is deciding a proper name. I'm not entirely sold on "PO Other
> >>> Halting" but you won't suggest a better alternative.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> On the basis that we know that every UTM(P,I) never halts defines
> >> the exact same set of computations that must be aborted by a
> >> simulating halt decider which defines the exact same set of
> >> computations P(I) that never halt we can know that any input to a
> >> simulating halt decider that never halts unless its simulation is
> >> aborted is a non-halting computation.
> >>
> >> Because we know that a simulating halt decider only simulates its
> >> input until after it has made its halt status decision we can know
> >> that H can ignore its own address range in its execution traces.
> >>
> >> Because the x86 execution trace of P on input P provides no
> >> possible escape from infinitely nested simulation and we can
> >> ignore the execution trace of H then we can know that H must abort
> >> its simulation of P on the basis of the sixteen lines of P:
> >>
> >> _P()
> >> [00000b25](01) 55 push ebp
> >> [00000b26](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [00000b28](01) 51 push ecx
> >> [00000b29](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >> [00000b2c](01) 50 push eax
> >> [00000b2d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >> [00000b30](01) 51 push ecx
> >> [00000b31](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955 // call H
> >>
> >> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b25
> >> ...[00000b25][002116fe][00211702](01) 55 push ebp
> >> // P1 ...[00000b26][002116fe][00211702](02) 8bec mov
> >> ebp,esp ...[00000b28][002116fa][002016ce](01) 51 push
> >> ecx ...[00000b29][002116fa][002016ce](03) 8b4508 mov
> >> eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000b2c][002116f6][00000b25](01) 50
> >> push eax ...[00000b2d][002116f6][00000b25](03) 8b4d08 mov
> >> ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000b30][002116f2][00000b25](01) 51
> >> push ecx ...[00000b31][002116ee][00000b36](05) e81ffeffff
> >> call 00000955 // H1 ...[00000b25][0025c126][0025c12a](01) 55
> >> push ebp // P2 ...[00000b26][0025c126][0025c12a](02) 8bec
> >> mov ebp,esp ...[00000b28][0025c122][0024c0f6](01) 51
> >> push ecx ...[00000b29][0025c122][0024c0f6](03) 8b4508
> >> mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000b2c][0025c11e][00000b25](01) 50
> >> push eax ...[00000b2d][0025c11e][00000b25](03) 8b4d08
> >> mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000b30][0025c11a][00000b25](01) 51
> >> push ecx ...[00000b31][0025c116][00000b36](05) e81ffeffff
> >> call 00000955 // H2 Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion
> >> Detected Simulation Stopped
> >
> > But this case is trivial and uninteresting: your decider needs to
> > analyse branching logic predicated on arbitrary input to be
> > non-trivial and interesting. You've still got nothing of value to
> > show.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
> >
>
> Once people comprehend that my halting criteria eliminates the
> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) of the halting problem proof
> counter-examples they will understand that the halting problem is not
> undecidable. Then teams of hundreds of software developers can handle
> details such as branching logic.
>
> The reason that my C code analyzes x86 code is that x86 code provides
> a complete directed graph of all control flow.
Nonsense:
mov eax,[ebp+08]
the memory at the address [ebp+08] might be
mapped to an I/O device so you don't know a priori what value it will
have.
More nonsense is of course that you have yet to show an example which
does involve control flow (with branching logic) and even if you did you
haven't responded to people posting non-trivial control flow examples.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 09:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) |
| Message-ID | <Mc-dnTud_JXqI3j9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2968 |
On 7/7/2021 5:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > >> On 7/5/21 7:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> >>>> Because the above computation must be aborted at some point or it >>>> never halts the above computation is a non-halting computation. >>> >>> It is a halting computation because it halts. The fact that P(P) halts >>> is not in dispute. >>> >>> Nor is it a matter of dispute that your POOH decider, H, returns H(P,P) >>> == 0 and so P(P) is a non-POOH computation. The only dispute is that >>> you think someone might be interested in the POOH problem. >>> >>> (For obvious reasons, you resist giving the property you claim H is >>> deciding a proper name. I'm not entirely sold on "PO Other Halting" but >>> you won't suggest a better alternative.) >>> >> >> I think the name is wrong, his machines don't REALLY deal with Halting, >> so it isn't other Halting, it really should be called Peter Olcott's >> Other Problem. > > Good point. It's because, in the original description, the halting of > one computation was reported as the halting of another that I went with > that name, but it does, as you say, suggest the wrong meaning for > other. Your name is better, but I don't want to confuse anyone by > changing. Maybe PO can choose which he prefers? > H acts as a pure x86 simulator until its input demonstrates non-halting behavior. It is common knowledge that when-so-ever the pure simulation of the machine description of a machine never halts on its input that this logically entails that this machine never halts on its input. This proves that H uses the same halting criteria as the halting problem. Because H acts as a pure simulator of its input until after it makes its halt status decision we know that the behavior of H cannot possibly have any effect on the behavior of P thus the behavior of H can be totally ignored in any halt status decision. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 20:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) |
| Message-ID | <ZpOdnXAu2_4uzHv9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2987 |
On 7/7/2021 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/7/21 10:47 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/7/2021 5:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/5/21 7:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because the above computation must be aborted at some point or it >>>>>> never halts the above computation is a non-halting computation. >>>>> >>>>> It is a halting computation because it halts. The fact that P(P) halts >>>>> is not in dispute. >>>>> >>>>> Nor is it a matter of dispute that your POOH decider, H, returns H(P,P) >>>>> == 0 and so P(P) is a non-POOH computation. The only dispute is that >>>>> you think someone might be interested in the POOH problem. >>>>> >>>>> (For obvious reasons, you resist giving the property you claim H is >>>>> deciding a proper name. I'm not entirely sold on "PO Other Halting" >>>>> but >>>>> you won't suggest a better alternative.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think the name is wrong, his machines don't REALLY deal with Halting, >>>> so it isn't other Halting, it really should be called Peter Olcott's >>>> Other Problem. >>> >>> Good point. It's because, in the original description, the halting of >>> one computation was reported as the halting of another that I went with >>> that name, but it does, as you say, suggest the wrong meaning for >>> other. Your name is better, but I don't want to confuse anyone by >>> changing. Maybe PO can choose which he prefers? >>> >> >> H acts as a pure x86 simulator until its input demonstrates non-halting >> behavior. It is common knowledge that when-so-ever the pure simulation >> of the machine description of a machine never halts on its input that >> this logically entails that this machine never halts on its input. This >> proves that H uses the same halting criteria as the halting problem. >> >> Because H acts as a pure simulator of its input until after it makes its >> halt status decision we know that the behavior of H cannot possibly have >> any effect on the behavior of P thus the behavior of H can be totally >> ignored in any halt status decision. >> >> > > But, as you just admitted, H ISN'T a pure simulator, because is WILL at > some point possible abort its simulation. > > When H abort its simulation, it affect the path of exection of the > machine that called it, I am only repeating this a ridiculous number of times because your mental deficiency requires things to be repeated hundreds of times before you notice them for the first time: The behavior of H has no effect on the halt status decision of H(P,P) because H remains a pure simulator of its input until after the halt status decision has been made. The behavior of H has no effect on the halt status decision of H(P,P) because H remains a pure simulator of its input until after the halt status decision has been made. The behavior of H has no effect on the halt status decision of H(P,P) because H remains a pure simulator of its input until after the halt status decision has been made. The behavior of H has no effect on the halt status decision of H(P,P) because H remains a pure simulator of its input until after the halt status decision has been made. The behavior of H has no effect on the halt status decision of H(P,P) because H remains a pure simulator of its input until after the halt status decision has been made. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 14:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc462n$i5j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2966 |
According to your posting-frequency you're manic. But post only to comp.arch; this is the only appropriate NG. You don't have any C/C++-specific issues and your thoguhts aren't related to AI either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 13:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) |
| Message-ID | <IKydnd5jQe5daHj9nZ2dnUU7-N-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2986 |
On 7/7/2021 12:25 PM, Real Troll wrote: > On 07/07/2021 13:18, Bonita Montero wrote: >> According to your posting-frequency you're manic. >> But post only to comp.arch; this is the only appropriate NG. >> You don't have any C/C++-specific issues and your thoguhts >> aren't related to AI either. > > He wants to win a Nobel price in computing! He believes you can > recommend him to the Nobel committee for his incessant trolling. There is no Nobel prize in computing. It turns out that it would have been impossible for me to make my views clear enough to be understood without the feedback that I have received on comp.theory of USENET. They are finally on the verge of being clear enough to be understood to be correct... H acts as a pure x86 simulator until its input demonstrates non-halting behavior. It is common knowledge that when-so-ever the pure simulation of the machine description of a machine never halts on its input that this logically entails that this machine never halts on its input. This proves that H uses the same halting criteria as the halting problem. Because H acts as a pure simulator of its input until after it makes its halt status decision we know that the behavior of H cannot possibly have any effect on the behavior of P thus the behavior of H can be totally ignored in any halt status decision. This eliminates the pathological self-reference of the halting problem proof counter-example templates making them decidable. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 19:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) |
| Message-ID | <4SmFI.12399$Vv6.146@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #2990 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >On 7/7/2021 12:25 PM, Real Troll wrote: >> On 07/07/2021 13:18, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> According to your posting-frequency you're manic. >>> But post only to comp.arch; this is the only appropriate NG. >>> You don't have any C/C++-specific issues and your thoguhts >>> aren't related to AI either. >> >> He wants to win a Nobel price in computing! He believes you can >> recommend him to the Nobel committee for his incessant trolling. > >There is no Nobel prize in computing. There is, of course, the Turing award. But crossposting trolls aren't eligable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 14:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? (V3) |
| Message-ID | <ZZqdnVRx3LOannv9nZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2991 |
On 7/7/2021 2:01 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> On 7/7/2021 12:25 PM, Real Troll wrote: >>> On 07/07/2021 13:18, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> According to your posting-frequency you're manic. >>>> But post only to comp.arch; this is the only appropriate NG. >>>> You don't have any C/C++-specific issues and your thoguhts >>>> aren't related to AI either. >>> >>> He wants to win a Nobel price in computing! He believes you can >>> recommend him to the Nobel committee for his incessant trolling. >> >> There is no Nobel prize in computing. > > There is, of course, the Turing award. > > But crossposting trolls aren't eligable. > I knew that and and also knew that Edsger Dijkstra won it four years after he posted a mere letter to the editor to the CACM. https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 17:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mPmdnU9o8qOuuHv9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2986 |
On 7/7/2021 4:52 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 7/7/2021 5:18 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> According to your posting-frequency you're manic. > > Yeah, he sure seems to be suffering from some sort of mania, from time > to time. Humm... > > >> But post only to comp.arch; this is the only appropriate NG. >> You don't have any C/C++-specific issues and your thoguhts >> aren't related to AI either. > With every few posts my words become increasingly more clear and undeniably correct. This only happens because of the feedback that I get for these posts. If you were Edison on the verge of invented the light bulb you would probably continue with great vigor until you were done. My words were clear enough to be understood as correct for months now, by any expert software engineer highly skilled in C and x86 that was highly motivated to understand what I am saying. People that really really want me to be wrong will never acknowledge that I am correct no matter how clear my words become. That seems to be most everyone here. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-07 18:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How do we know that H(P,P)==0 is correct? [ proof ] |
| Message-ID | <b-mdnS11WMe-rnv9nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2994 |
On 7/7/2021 5:41 PM, wij wrote: > On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 06:05:45 UTC+8, olcott wrote: >> On 7/7/2021 4:52 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>> On 7/7/2021 5:18 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> According to your posting-frequency you're manic. >>> >>> Yeah, he sure seems to be suffering from some sort of mania, from time >>> to time. Humm... >>> >>> >>>> But post only to comp.arch; this is the only appropriate NG. >>>> You don't have any C/C++-specific issues and your thoguhts >>>> aren't related to AI either. >>> >> With every few posts my words become increasingly more clear and >> undeniably correct. This only happens because of the feedback that I get >> for these posts. >> >> If you were Edison on the verge of invented the light bulb you would >> probably continue with great vigor until you were done. >> >> My words were clear enough to be understood as correct for months now, >> by any expert software engineer highly skilled in C and x86 that was >> highly motivated to understand what I am saying. >> >> People that really really want me to be wrong will never acknowledge >> that I am correct no matter how clear my words become. That seems to be >> most everyone here. >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation >> -- >> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott >> >> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre >> minds." Einstein > > I (and many) do wish you are right. But you don't have real proof, that is the fact. > I do have sound deductive inference which is a kind of proof. Mike Terry incorrectly rejected what I have entirely on the basis that it did not fit the pattern of a mathematical proof. Premise(1) (Axiom) When the pure simulation of the machine description ⟨P⟩ of a machine P on its input I never halts we know that P(I) never halts. This can be rephrased as every computation that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is a computation that never halts. Premise(2) (verified fact) The simulation of the input to H(P,P) never halts without being aborted is a verified fact on the basis of its x86 execution trace. When the simulator determines whether or not it must abort the simulation of its input based on the behavior of its input the simulator only acts as an x86 emulator thus has no effect on the behavior of its input. This allows the simulator to always ignore its own behavior. H simply screens out its own address range when making its halt status decision. Conclusion(3) From the above true premises it necessarily follows that simulating halt decider H correctly reports that its input: (P,P) never halts. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.software-eng
csiph-web