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

Groups > comp.theory > #50298

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

Show all headers | View raw

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 5/11/2022 8:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 5/11/2022 7:25 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/11/2022 2:54 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you had the technical skill you could verify that it is 100%
>>>>>>> impossible for there to be anything wrong with the code on the basis
>>>>>>> of that of the verifiably correct execution trace that it derives.
>>>>>> You trace clearly and accurately shows that what you call the
>>>>>> "simulation of the input" is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is utter nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> The whole exchange is ridiculous.  You post traces you now admit are
>>>> edited.
>>>
>>> I normally have that debug info disabled so it need not be edited.
>>> You needed to see that it really is recursive simulation (because you
>>> didn't believe me) so I left these details in.
>> No, I said it is not a nested simulation -- i.e. a simulation of a
>> function that then simulates a simulation and so on.  It clearly isn't.
>
> I wrote it and it was the very most difficult part to write and thus I
> know for a fact that it is.

And you are determined to prevent anyone else from knowing it by (a)
hiding the code, and (b) publishing traces that don't show it.  Show the
code or it didn't happen.

> These things have been DEAD OBVIOUS for six months and everyone here
> is too stupid, dishonest or ignorant to acknowledge them.

Yet, as I said, you have not been published, and you remain unheard of.

Dead obvious things that overturn key theorems should be easy to
publish.  Even if you can't write clearly enough on your own, you should
be able to find a professor to co-author a paper with you.  Since it's
dead obvious, how hard could it be to write?

Or maybe you are just deluded and wrong?  After all, H(P,P) == false
even though P(P) halts is wrong by definition.  You might struggle to
get anyone to co-author such a paper.

-- 
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