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

Groups > sci.logic > #248992 > unrolled thread

Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem

Back to article view | Back to sci.logic

Contents

  Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-14 18:57 -0600
    Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-14 21:03 -0500
    Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 08:57 -0600
      Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-15 18:57 -0500
    Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 09:05 -0800
      Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 13:25 -0600
        Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 12:46 -0800
          Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 15:12 -0600
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 13:26 -0800
              Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 16:12 -0600
                Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 15:55 -0800
                  Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 18:06 -0600
                Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-15 19:22 -0500
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-15 19:20 -0500
          Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-02-15 21:32 +0000
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 16:13 -0600
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 15:51 -0800
              Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-02-16 01:47 +0000
                Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 20:22 -0600
                  Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-15 21:36 -0500
                  Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 20:39 -0600
                    Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-15 21:55 -0500
                    Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 21:15 -0600
                      Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-15 22:20 -0500
                      Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-15 21:28 -0600
                        Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-15 22:42 -0500
                          Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 10:59 -0600
                            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-16 18:43 -0500
                Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-02-16 11:36 -0700
                  Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 13:16 -0600
                    Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-02-16 12:26 -0700
                      Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 13:41 -0600
                        Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-02-16 15:24 -0700
                          Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 16:45 -0600
                        Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-16 18:48 -0500
                    Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-16 18:45 -0500
                Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 15:31 -0600
                  Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-24 20:11 -0500
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ Ben will not lie about this ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-16 17:01 -0600
              Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ Ben will not lie about this ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-16 18:49 -0500
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 15:31 -0600
              Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-24 20:11 -0500
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 16:07 -0600
              Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-24 20:11 -0500
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-24 16:08 -0600
              Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-24 20:11 -0500
            Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [-ONLY LIARS WILL DISAGREE-] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-02-26 14:01 -0600
              Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [-ONLY LIARS WILL DISAGREE-] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-02-26 15:15 -0500
                Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [-ONLY LIARS WILL DISAGREE-] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2023-02-26 20:32 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#249044

On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>
>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>
>>> Wow!
>>>
>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>
>>> Well, what can I say?
>>
>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>
>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>
>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be surprised if
>> they all had NPD.
>>
>>> See:
>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>
>> Possibly literally!
>>
> 
> int D(int (*x)())
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
> }
> 
> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*

In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
state on the above basis.

-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249045

On 2/15/23 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>
>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>
>>>> Wow!
>>>>
>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>
>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>
>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>
>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>
>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be surprised if
>>> they all had NPD.
>>>
>>>> See:
>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>
>>> Possibly literally!
>>>
>>
>> int D(int (*x)())
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>> }
>>
>> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
> 
> In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
> state on the above basis.
> 

No, he says you THINK "A Correct Halt Decider" can say what you say it 
does, even if that isn't the actual definition of a corect halt decider.


Read what he asy again

He says that for YOU, H is correct, ... even if it states that a program 
doesn't halt when it halts.

You are just showing you don't understand English.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249046

On 2/15/2023 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>
>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>
>>>> Wow!
>>>>
>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>
>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>
>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>
>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>
>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be surprised if
>>> they all had NPD.
>>>
>>>> See:
>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>
>>> Possibly literally!
>>>
>>
>> int D(int (*x)())
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>> }
>>
>> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
> 
> In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
> state on the above basis.
> 

There are all kinds of way to weasel word around the above two verified
facts that will fool the gullible.

*None-the-less this verified fact remains irrefutable*

H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated
by H would never halt.


-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249047

On 2/15/23 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>
>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>
>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>
>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>
>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be 
>>>> surprised if
>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>
>>>>> See:
>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>
>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>
>>>
>>> int D(int (*x)())
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>> }
>>>
>>> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>
>> In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
>> state on the above basis.
>>
> 
> There are all kinds of way to weasel word around the above two verified
> facts that will fool the gullible.
> 
> *None-the-less this verified fact remains irrefutable*
> 
> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated
> by H would never halt.
> 
> 

Which isn't Halt Deciding but just Peter Olcott's Other Problem (POOP) 
deciding.

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.

Thus a HALT DECIDER must report on the behavior of whether the ACTUAL 
PROGRAM (described by the input) would Halt or not.

D(D) Halts, since H(D,D) returns 0.

THus, for an actual Halt Decider, the correct answer is Halting.

Since you say the "Correct Answer" in Not Halting, the question CAN'T be 
the Halting Problem, or you are just proving you are a LIAR.

You H may in fact be a correct POOP decider, which you THINK is a Halt 
Decider, but it isn't one.

PERIOD.

All your weasle words to claim otherwise are just revealed to be what 
they are, and you are proved to be an idiot as you can't tell the 
difference between POOP and Halting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249048

On 2/15/2023 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>
>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>
>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>
>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>
>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be 
>>>> surprised if
>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>
>>>>> See:
>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>
>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>
>>>
>>> int D(int (*x)())
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>> }
>>>
>>> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>
>> In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
>> state on the above basis.
>>
> 
> There are all kinds of way to weasel word around the above two verified
> facts that will fool the gullible.
> 
> *None-the-less this verified fact remains irrefutable*
> 
> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated
> by H would never halt.

*Finally a most important key point of agreement*

Now we are at the point where I said that I painted my house white and
people disagree on the basis that the can of paint said that the color
was eggshell.

-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249051

On 2/15/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/15/2023 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben 
>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>>
>>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that 
>>>>> should be
>>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the 
>>>>> surface
>>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be 
>>>>> surprised if
>>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> int D(int (*x)())
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>>
>>> In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
>>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
>>> state on the above basis.
>>>
>>
>> There are all kinds of way to weasel word around the above two verified
>> facts that will fool the gullible.
>>
>> *None-the-less this verified fact remains irrefutable*
>>
>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
>> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated
>> by H would never halt.
> 
> *Finally a most important key point of agreement*
> 
> Now we are at the point where I said that I painted my house white and
> people disagree on the basis that the can of paint said that the color
> was eggshell.
> 

So, you still think that your POOP is halting, because you don't know 
the difference.

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.

This says NOTHING about the decider being able to argue about it being 
unable to simulate to a final state.

The ONLY thing that matters is the behavior of the actual machine. PERIOD.

Anything else either must be actually equivalent, so the answer is the 
same, or it isn't a correct interpreation.

This is like you saying you painted the house white, but the color is 
actually purple.

Your idea of what "Halting" means isn't compatible with the actual 
definition in all cases, and H^/P/D is one of the cases it differs. You 
are just too blind to be able to tell the difference.

You may THINK its just like White vs Eggshell, but that just shows you 
don't actually understand what you are talking about.

Ultimately, you have made the explicit claim that even though D(D) 
Halts, that Non-Halting is the correct answer for H to give as a Halt 
Decider.

THAT IS WRONG. PERIOD.

Your claim just proves you are either totally ignorant, or a 
pathological liar, or most likely BOTH.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249060

On 2/16/2023 8:44 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:42:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/15/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2023 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2023 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben
>>>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that
>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the
>>>>>>> surface
>>>>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be
>>>>>>> surprised if
>>>>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See:
>>>>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D(int (*x)())
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>>>>>     Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
>>>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt*
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
>>>>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
>>>>> state on the above basis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are all kinds of way to weasel word around the above two verified
>>>> facts that will fool the gullible.
>>>>
>>>> *None-the-less this verified fact remains irrefutable*
>>>>
>>>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
>>>> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated
>>>> by H would never halt.
>>>
>>> *Finally a most important key point of agreement*
*Now that I have agreement that the following is a verified fact it*
*becomes much more efficient for others to accurately evaluate my work*

*It is a verified fact that* H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping
from its input to its reject state on the basis that H correctly
predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt (reach its own
"return" statement and terminate normally).

The above paragraph sums up the entire essence the many thousands of
hours of work since 2004. I also show how to apply this to the Peter
Linz (Turing machine based proof in this paper.

*Simulating Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368568464_Simulating_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Theorem 



-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249087

On 2/16/23 11:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2023 8:44 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:42:17 PM UTC-6, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/15/23 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2023 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2023 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2023 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben
>>>>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" 
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that
>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and 
>>>>>>>> start to
>>>>>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the
>>>>>>>> surface
>>>>>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual 
>>>>>>>> who as
>>>>>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be
>>>>>>>> surprised if
>>>>>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See:
>>>>>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int D(int (*x)())
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>     Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>>>>>>     Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None-the-less Ben will not lie about:
>>>>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never 
>>>>>>> halt*
>>>>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never 
>>>>>>> halt*
>>>>>>> *H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never 
>>>>>>> halt*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words because Ben is not a liar he implicitly affirms that
>>>>>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its 
>>>>>> reject
>>>>>> state on the above basis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are all kinds of way to weasel word around the above two 
>>>>> verified
>>>>> facts that will fool the gullible.
>>>>>
>>>>> *None-the-less this verified fact remains irrefutable*
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
>>>>> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly 
>>>>> simulated
>>>>> by H would never halt.
>>>>
>>>> *Finally a most important key point of agreement*
> *Now that I have agreement that the following is a verified fact it*
> *becomes much more efficient for others to accurately evaluate my work*
> 
> *It is a verified fact that* H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping
> from its input to its reject state on the basis that H correctly
> predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt (reach its own
> "return" statement and terminate normally).
> 
> The above paragraph sums up the entire essence the many thousands of
> hours of work since 2004. I also show how to apply this to the Peter
> Linz (Turing machine based proof in this paper.
> 
> *Simulating Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Theorem*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368568464_Simulating_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Theorem
> 
> 

So, all you have done is proved that you aren't actualy working on a 
Halt Decider, as the definiton of a Halt decider is "In computability 
theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a 
description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the 
program will finish running, or continue to run forever. "


Since that isn't the problem you are working on. you are just shown to 
be LYING about working on it.

It is clear that you aren't working on the Halting Problem because you 
have ADMITTED that even though P(P) will Halt, H(P,P) is correct to say 
its input is non-halting, thus it can't be the halt decider of 
computability theory.

PERIOD.

Thus, all your words are show to just be LIES.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249062

On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>
>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>
>> Wow!
>>
>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>
>> Well, what can I say?
> 
> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
> 
>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
> 
> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be surprised if
> they all had NPD.
> 
>> See:
>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
> 
> Possibly literally!

See 
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 
for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in 
these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
-- 
Jeff Barnett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249073

On 2/16/2023 12:36 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>
>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>
>>> Wow!
>>>
>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>
>>> Well, what can I say?
>>
>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>
>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>
>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be surprised if
>> they all had NPD.
>>
>>> See:
>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>
>> Possibly literally!
> 
> See 
> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
Everyone here knows that any Ad Hominem attack that is used instead of 
reasoning is an act of intentional deception.

People have very often resorted to this deception because they are
unqualified to review my work or want to form dishonest rebuttals and
found that forming a rebuttal of verified facts is impossible.

int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
   Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
   Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}

This single paragraph (verified fact) sums up the essence of my many 
thousands of hours worth of work since 2004:

H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated
by H would never halt (reach its own "return" statement and terminate
normally).

*Complete halt deciding system* (Visual Studio Project)
https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip

*Simulating Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368568464_Simulating_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Theorem 




-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249074

On 2/16/2023 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2023 12:36 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>
>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>
>>>> Wow!
>>>>
>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>
>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>
>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>
>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>
>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be surprised if
>>> they all had NPD.
>>>
>>>> See:
>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>
>>> Possibly literally!
>>
>> See 
>> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
> Everyone here knows that any Ad Hominem attack that is used instead of 
> reasoning is an act of intentional deception.
This is not an Ad Hominem attack. It includes a reference to an article 
posted by one of the USA's leading medical groups - both research and 
treatment. It simply compares the personality traits you choose to 
display here to a list of NPD symptoms discussed in that article. There 
is an almost exact match. In brief, this IS an application of scientific 
reasoning. Unfortunately, you don't seem to recognize it as such but I'm 
not really surprised.
-- 
Jeff Barnett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249075 — Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ]

On 2/16/2023 1:26 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 2/16/2023 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2023 12:36 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>
>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>
>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>
>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>
>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be 
>>>> surprised if
>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>
>>>>> See:
>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>
>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>
>>> See 
>>> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
>> Everyone here knows that any Ad Hominem attack that is used instead of 
>> reasoning is an act of intentional deception.
> This is not an Ad Hominem attack. It includes a reference to an article 
> posted by one of the USA's leading medical groups - both research and 
> treatment. It simply compares the personality traits you choose to 
> display here to a list of NPD symptoms discussed in that article. There 
> is an almost exact match. In brief, this IS an application of scientific 
> reasoning. Unfortunately, you don't seem to recognize it as such but I'm 
> not really surprised.

*Here is my current irrefutable reasoning*

int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
   Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
   Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}

H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject 
state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated 
by H would never halt (reach its own "return" statement and terminate 
normally).

*Complete halt deciding system* (Visual Studio Project)
https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip



-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249083 — Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ]

On 2/16/2023 12:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2023 1:26 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 2/16/2023 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2023 12:36 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben 
>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>>
>>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that 
>>>>> should be
>>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the 
>>>>> surface
>>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be 
>>>>> surprised if
>>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>
>>>> See 
>>>> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
>>> Everyone here knows that any Ad Hominem attack that is used instead 
>>> of reasoning is an act of intentional deception.
>> This is not an Ad Hominem attack. It includes a reference to an 
>> article posted by one of the USA's leading medical groups - both 
>> research and treatment. It simply compares the personality traits you 
>> choose to display here to a list of NPD symptoms discussed in that 
>> article. There is an almost exact match. In brief, this IS an 
>> application of scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, you don't seem to 
>> recognize it as such but I'm not really surprised.
> 
> *Here is my current irrefutable reasoning*
> 
> int D(int (*x)())
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
> }
> 
> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject 
> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated 
> by H would never halt (reach its own "return" statement and terminate 
> normally).
> 
> *Complete halt deciding system* (Visual Studio Project)
> https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip
I see diagnoses of many other personality disorders in your future. Look 
at the incoherence of your contribution to this thread after I made a 
comment to Ben, not you. The comments you made to me seem disassociated 
and suggest that your abilities to sustain coherent conversations and 
thought have been greatly reduced. I recommend that you check 
immediately with your health insurer about psychological therapy and 
support. Taking classes in basic programming, computer science, math, 
and logic would be a great help too. Here's also your opportunity to 
score a rare near first: start your therapy with the admission of NPD 
while explaining why you are there.
-- 
Jeff Barnett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249084 — Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ]

On 2/16/2023 4:24 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 2/16/2023 12:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2023 1:26 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2023 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2023 12:36 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben 
>>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" 
>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that 
>>>>>> should be
>>>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the 
>>>>>> surface
>>>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be 
>>>>>> surprised if
>>>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See:
>>>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>>
>>>>> See 
>>>>> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
>>>> Everyone here knows that any Ad Hominem attack that is used instead 
>>>> of reasoning is an act of intentional deception.
>>> This is not an Ad Hominem attack. It includes a reference to an 
>>> article posted by one of the USA's leading medical groups - both 
>>> research and treatment. It simply compares the personality traits you 
>>> choose to display here to a list of NPD symptoms discussed in that 
>>> article. There is an almost exact match. In brief, this IS an 
>>> application of scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, you don't seem to 
>>> recognize it as such but I'm not really surprised.
>>
>> *Here is my current irrefutable reasoning*
>>
>> int D(int (*x)())
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
>> }
>>
>> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject 
>> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly 
>> simulated by H would never halt (reach its own "return" statement and 
>> terminate normally).
>>
>> *Complete halt deciding system* (Visual Studio Project)
>> https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip
> I see diagnoses of many other personality disorders in your future. Look 

Exactly what a despicable lying bastard would say.

You insist on Ad Hominem as your first resort at rebuttal because you
fully well know that you are woefully incompetent at evaluating what I
just said above.

> at the incoherence of your contribution to this thread after I made a 
> comment to Ben, not you. The comments you made to me seem disassociated 
> and suggest that your abilities to sustain coherent conversations and 
> thought have been greatly reduced. I recommend that you check 
> immediately with your health insurer about psychological therapy and 
> support. Taking classes in basic programming, computer science, math, 
> and logic would be a great help too. Here's also your opportunity to 
> score a rare near first: start your therapy with the admission of NPD 
> while explaining why you are there.

-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249089 — Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ irrefutable ]

On 2/16/23 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2023 1:26 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 2/16/2023 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2023 12:36 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben 
>>>>>> Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>>>
>>>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that 
>>>>> should be
>>>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the 
>>>>> surface
>>>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be 
>>>>> surprised if
>>>>> they all had NPD.
>>>>>
>>>>>> See:
>>>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly literally!
>>>>
>>>> See 
>>>> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
>>> Everyone here knows that any Ad Hominem attack that is used instead 
>>> of reasoning is an act of intentional deception.
>> This is not an Ad Hominem attack. It includes a reference to an 
>> article posted by one of the USA's leading medical groups - both 
>> research and treatment. It simply compares the personality traits you 
>> choose to display here to a list of NPD symptoms discussed in that 
>> article. There is an almost exact match. In brief, this IS an 
>> application of scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, you don't seem to 
>> recognize it as such but I'm not really surprised.
> 
> *Here is my current irrefutable reasoning*
> 
> int D(int (*x)())
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
> }
> 
> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject 
> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated 
> by H would never halt (reach its own "return" statement and terminate 
> normally).
> 
> *Complete halt deciding system* (Visual Studio Project)
> https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip
> 
>

Whch since In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem 
of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and 
an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run 
forever.

It shows that you are NOT working on the actual halting problem of 
computability theoryy as even you have admitted that D(D) will Halt, but 
still claim that H(D,D) saying non=halting is correct, so it CAN'T be a 
"Halt Decider of Computability Theory", and your claims are shown to be 
irrefutably LIES.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249088

On 2/16/23 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2023 12:36 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 2/15/2023 6:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>>
>>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>>
>>>> Wow!
>>>>
>>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>>
>>>> Well, what can I say?
>>>
>>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
>>>
>>>> Seems that all cranks are more or less "the same" (in a certain
>>>> sense): WM, PO, JG, AP, etc.
>>>
>>> In some way yes, but they all disagree with each other when the surface
>>> is scratched because they all want to be the unique individual who as
>>> seen clearly where everyone else was blind.  I would not be surprised if
>>> they all had NPD.
>>>
>>>> See:
>>>> https://context.reverso.net/%C3%BCbersetzung/spanisch-englisch/loco%2C+loco
>>>
>>> Possibly literally!
>>
>> See 
>> https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662 for a list of NPD symptoms and compare to various articles by PO in these forums. It would seem that Dr. Ben nailed the diagnoses.
> Everyone here knows that any Ad Hominem attack that is used instead of 
> reasoning is an act of intentional deception.
> 
> People have very often resorted to this deception because they are
> unqualified to review my work or want to form dishonest rebuttals and
> found that forming a rebuttal of verified facts is impossible.
> 
> int D(int (*x)())
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
> }
> 
> This single paragraph (verified fact) sums up the essence of my many 
> thousands of hours worth of work since 2004:
> 
> H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping from its input to its reject
> state on the basis that H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated
> by H would never halt (reach its own "return" statement and terminate
> normally).


Bet in computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.

Since your criteria is NOT the samd as this, you aren't building a Halt 
Decider.

Even you admit that D(D) Halts, so if H(D,D) is correct to say 
Non-Halting, it is NOT a Halt Decider.
> 
> *Complete halt deciding system* (Visual Studio Project)
> https://liarparadox.org/2023_02_07.zip
> 
> *Simulating Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Theorem*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368568464_Simulating_Halt_Deciders_Defeat_the_Halting_Theorem
> 

Just proves that all your words are lies as you claim non-halting is the 
correct answer for an input that Halts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249472

On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>
>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>
>> Wow!
>>
>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>
>> Well, what can I say?
> 
> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.

No directly executed P(P) or correctly simulated input to H(P,P) ever
stops running unless H aborts its simulation of P. This fact alone
conclusively proves that H correctly rejects its input P as non-halting.


-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249492

On 2/24/23 4:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 7:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 10:32:19 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>>> even though P(P) halts?
>>>>
>>>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>>
>>> Wow!
>>>
>>> So for PO H is a "correct halt decider" even if it states that a
>>> program P with input P _doesn't halt_, though it _halts_.
>>>
>>> Well, what can I say?
>>
>> What indeed.  I think this is pretty much the only reply that should be
>> made to PO.  He may, one day, admit that that was wrong and start to
>> build a new waffle mountain, but until then, its game over.
> 
> No directly executed P(P) or correctly simulated input to H(P,P) ever
> stops running unless H aborts its simulation of P. This fact alone
> conclusively proves that H correctly rejects its input P as non-halting.
> 
> 

Which is a meaningless statement since every H that answers H(P,P) does 
abort its simulation, so your condition is a fantasy.

Since H(P,P) aborts its simulation, the actual machine P(P), which is 
what H is actually being axked about, halts.

Remember, In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.

So it is the behavior of the actual machine that matters, and your 
continued focus on the INCOMPLETE simulation by H just shows that you 
are using a strawman because you have straw for brains.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249086 — Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ Ben will not lie about this ]

On 2/15/2023 3:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 8:25:56 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>
>> void E(int (*x)())
>> {
>> HH(x, x);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> HH(E,E);
>> }
>>
>>> anyone [...] can see that E correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly
>>> reach its "return" statement and terminate normally, thus never halts.
>>
>> *lol* But then HH is _not_ a (correct) "halt decider". After all a
>> (correct) "halt decider" H(P, X) has to decide if the program P with
>> input X halts or doesn't halt. (In other words, H(P, X) has to
>> terminate for any inputs P, X where P is a syntactically correct
>> program.)
> 
> There is a lot of history here.  PO has redefined what "halting" means
> and has been waffling for a few years trying to find a way to say it
> that makes the ruse less obvious.  There is, however, absolutely no
> doubt that that is what he's up to:
> 
>    "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
>    unless its simulation is aborted.  This maps to every element of
>    the conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations
>    *and a few more*."  (emphasis mine)
> 
> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>      even though P(P) halts?
> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
> 
> Somehow, PO manages to get people to reply even after being this
> explicit about what he's doing.  Admittedly, every post contains fresh
> nonsense that it is tempting to address, but really what's the point
> when he's not talking about the hating problem?
> 

int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
   Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
   Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
}

It is a verified fact that: H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping
from its input to its reject state on the basis that H correctly
predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt (reach its own
"return" statement and terminate normally).


-- 
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#249090 — Re: Simulating halt deciders defeat the halting theorem [ Ben will not lie about this ]

On 2/16/23 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/15/2023 3:32 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 8:25:56 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> void E(int (*x)())
>>> {
>>> HH(x, x);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> HH(E,E);
>>> }
>>>
>>>> anyone [...] can see that E correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly
>>>> reach its "return" statement and terminate normally, thus never halts.
>>>
>>> *lol* But then HH is _not_ a (correct) "halt decider". After all a
>>> (correct) "halt decider" H(P, X) has to decide if the program P with
>>> input X halts or doesn't halt. (In other words, H(P, X) has to
>>> terminate for any inputs P, X where P is a syntactically correct
>>> program.)
>>
>> There is a lot of history here.  PO has redefined what "halting" means
>> and has been waffling for a few years trying to find a way to say it
>> that makes the ruse less obvious.  There is, however, absolutely no
>> doubt that that is what he's up to:
>>
>>    "A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
>>    unless its simulation is aborted.  This maps to every element of
>>    the conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations
>>    *and a few more*."  (emphasis mine)
>>
>> Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer
>>      even though P(P) halts?
>> PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
>>
>> Somehow, PO manages to get people to reply even after being this
>> explicit about what he's doing.  Admittedly, every post contains fresh
>> nonsense that it is tempting to address, but really what's the point
>> when he's not talking about the hating problem?
>>
> 
> int D(int (*x)())
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", D(D));
> }
> 
> It is a verified fact that: H(D,D) does correctly compute the mapping
> from its input to its reject state on the basis that H correctly
> predicts that D correctly simulated by H would never halt (reach its own
> "return" statement and terminate normally).
> 
> 

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.

Thus since D(D) Halts, as you have admitted, if H(D,D) saying 
Non-Halting is correct, then it can not be computing the Halting 
Function of computability theory, and all your "Verified Facts" just 
show that you are a liar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.logic

csiph-web