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

Groups > comp.theory > #50226

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Followups directed to: comp.theory

Show all headers | View raw

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/10/2022 10:50 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> 
>>> (a) Verify that the execution trace of P by H is correct by comparing
>>> this execution trace to the ax86 source-code of P.
>>
>> P called with what argument?  I assume P.

You won't even correct a trivial point.

>>> (b) Verify that this execution trace shows that P is stuck in
>>> infinitely nested simulation (a non-halting behavior).
>>
>> Something is wrong in your code if P(P), or a simulation of P(P), does
>> not halt, since you told us that it does.  Post the code and someone
>> will help you find the bug.

Don't you want to know what's wrong with your code?  Your trace shows
that you are not even nesting any simulations so that's one error right
there.  But there are clearly others.

>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>> #define u32 uint32_t
>>>
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>>    if (H(x, x))
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>> }
>>
>> Unless you are retracting any of the facts you have previously stated,
>> we know (because you've told us) that H(P,P) returns 0 and we know
>> (because you've told us) that P(P) halts.  The trace of the execution
>> will either confirm this, or the trace is faulty.  Nothing new can come
>> from looking at traces of mystery code.

Are you retracting any of the facts you have previously stated?  If not,
you are, as you no doubt know by now, wrong by definition.

> (a) The trace is verifiably correct if one has the technical skill.

A trace is neither correct not incorrect.  It just shows a (partial)
program execution.  It "correctly" shows that H is not doing what you
claim (it shows no nested simulation) so maybe that means it's
"incorrect"?

> (b) The trace is proved non-halting if one has the technical skill.
> You simply don't seem to have the technical skill.

The trace shows H not doing what you claim.  The fact that don't address
this gross misdirection on your part make it more a lie than an error.

> I PUT BACK IN THE MANDATORY DETAILS THAT PROVE MY POINT THAT YOU
> ERASED.

There's no point in repeatedly posting a trace that it at best the wrong
one and at worst a lie.  The right trace to post (again) would be the
one showing P(P) halting.

Obviously, you'd like people to talk about something other than the bald
fact that you are wrong by definition: H(P,P) == false "even though P(P)
halts" (your words).

-- 
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 07:26 -0500
  Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 07:55 -0700
  Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 16:50 +0100
    Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 23:47 -0500
      Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 07:16 -0400
      Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 14:21 +0100
        Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 09:24 -0500
          Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 20:51 +0100
          Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 19:42 -0400
    Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 09:07 -0500
      Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 20:54 +0100
        Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 16:35 -0500
          Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 01:25 +0100
            Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:38 -0500
              Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 20:59 -0400
              Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:24 +0100
                Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]( will keep repeating until understood ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 21:46 -0500
                Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]( will keep repeating until understood ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 23:10 -0400
                Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]( will keep repeating until understood ) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 21:32 +0100
  Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 12:38 -0700

csiph-web