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

Groups > comp.theory > #50275

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

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/11/22 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 
>> The trace is not a trace of what you claim your H is doing.  That's why
>> you are hiding H and why you will never publish it.
> 
> The trace is the trace of the input to H(P,P) does not bother to display 
> of the 236 pages of execution trace of H performing a pure simulation on 
> P that calls H that performs a pure simulation of P that would call H 
> again.
> 
> While the two levels of H are performing a pure simulation of their 
> inputs they have no behavior what-so-ever that can possibly have any 
> effect on the behavior of either of the simulated (P,P) instances.


Except they DO. There are conditional branches, that contain the 
capability to break the "infinite loop", and in fact which WILL break 
the infinite loop of the outer simulator does.

Thus, the "rule" that the outer simulator is using isn't actually satisfied.

> 
> This allows their instructions to be safely ignored when outputting the 
> most relevant portion of the execution trace. Instead of 237 pages we 
> only need to look at 14 lines.
> 

Nope.

> *Maybe we should go over this point again and again over and*
> *over hundreds of times if needed until you understand it*
> 

YOU are stuck in the infinite loop, because you don't understand your 
termination conditin.

> 
> It is so dead obvious that I proved that the code is correct on the 
> basis of the 14 lines of correct simulation that it produces.

Yes, it is dead obvious that H is wrong, and the trace is incorrrect.

And, from your reports,

> 
> It is also dead obvious and that and second function call from the same 
> machine address to the same function with the same parameters 
> conclusively proves infinite recursion.
> 

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

If you claim it is dead obvious, why haven't you submitted the paper, 
before YOU are dead.

I think it is because you know you haven't actually proved what you 
need, and are trying to refine your lie to try and get something that 
maybe someone will publish posthumously out of pity, and maybe people 
will be kind to the dead. It won't work, as you ideas are just too bad.

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