Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, comp.software-eng |
| Subject | Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering |
| Message-ID | <20220703165111.00006d29@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <Y72dndpURKjqM1z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220703162148.00001389@reddwarf.jmc> <Eqednf7muZ26K1z_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <20220703164543.00004b55@reddwarf.jmc> <kcKdnc6XHIvZJ1z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corp |
| Date | 2022-07-03 16:51 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 10:48:18 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/3/2022 10:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 10:30:45 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/3/2022 10:21 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 09:57:57 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/3/2022 9:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 17:13:01 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/2/2022 5:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 16:26:45 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 1:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:41:14 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 1:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 12:30:03 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 12:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 12:15:58 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 12:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:42:48 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 11:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 10:34:34 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This much more concise version of my paper focuses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the actual execution of three fully operational
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H0 correctly determines that Infinite_Loop() never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts H correctly determines that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion() never halts H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines that P() never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)P)); }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As shown below the above P and H have the required
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (halting problem) pathological relationship to each
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For any program H that might
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine if programs halt, a "pathological"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program P, called with some input,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and then specifically do the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what H predicts P will do. No H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can exist that handles this case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really need software engineers to verify that H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does correctly predict that its complete and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct x86 emulation of its input would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach the "ret" instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)Px)); }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6827040000 push 00000427
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xor eax,eax ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pop ebp ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As can be seen above Olcott's H decides that Px does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt but it is obvious that Px should always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt if H is a valid halt decider that always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a decision to its caller (Px). Olcott's H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not return a decision to its caller (Px) and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is thus invalid.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your false assumptions are directly contradicted by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)Px)); }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Px()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001192](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001193](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001195](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001198](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001199](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000119c](01) 51 push ecx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000119d](05) e8d0fdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a5](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011a6](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [000011a6]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011d2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011d3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011d5](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011da](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011df](05) e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011e4](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011e7](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011e8](05) 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011ed](05) e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f5](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [000011f8]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly address address data code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language ======== ======== ======== =========
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ============= [000011d2][00101f7f][00000000] 55
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp [000011d3][00101f7f][00000000] 8bec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp [000011d5][00101f7b][00001192]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011da][00101f77][00001192] 6892110000 push
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00001192 [000011df][00101f73][000011e4] e88efdffff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at:11202b Address_of_H:f72
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001192][00112017][0011201b] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001193][00112017][0011201b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001195][00112017][0011201b] 8b4508 mov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08] [00001198][00112013][00001192] 50
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push eax // push Px
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001199][00112013][00001192] 8b4d08 mov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08] [0000119c][0011200f][00001192] 51
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ecx // push Px [0000119d][0011200b][000011a2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e8d0fdffff call 00000f72 // call H(Px,Px) H:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stopped
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H knows its own machine address and on this basis it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can easily examine its stored execution_trace of Px
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see above) to determine: (a) Px is calling H with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same arguments that H was called with. (b) No
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions in Px could possibly escape this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise infinitely recursive emulation. (c) H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts its emulation of Px before its call to H is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011e4][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011e7][00101f7b][00000000] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011e8][00101f77][000004a3] 68a3040000 push
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 000004a3 [000011ed][00101f77][000004a3] e800f3ffff
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call 000004f2 Input_Halts = 0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f2][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f5][00101f7f][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f7][00101f83][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000011f8][00101f87][00000000] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(880) == 13 Pages
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H wasn't a simulation-based halting decider then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Px() would always halt; the infinite recursion is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestation of your invalid simulation-based halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider. There is no recursion in [Strachey 1965].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are rejecting the concept of a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt decider even though I conclusively
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved that it does correctly determine the halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of: (see my new paper)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No I am rejecting your simulating halt decider as it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> gets the answer wrong for Px() which is not a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological input. Px() halts.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I just proved that H(Px,Px) does correctly predict that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> its complete and correct x86 emulation of its input
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction of this input
> >>>>>>>>>>>> because of the pathological relationship between H and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Px.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Px() is not a pathological input as defined by the
> >>>>>>>>>>> halting problem and [Strachey 1965] as it does not try to
> >>>>>>>>>>> do the opposite of what H decides.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Your lack of comprehension does not actually count as any
> >>>>>>>>>> rebuttal at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As shown below the above P and H have the required (halting
> >>>>>>>>>> problem) pathological relationship to each other:
> >>>>>>>>> [snip]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> P does but Px does not. I am talking about Px not P.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add
> >>>>>>>>> esp,+08 ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50
> >>>>>>>>> push eax ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000
> >>>>>>>>> push 00000427 ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff
> >>>>>>>>> call 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
> >>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add
> >>>>>>>>> esp,+08 ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0
> >>>>>>>>> xor eax,eax ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d
> >>>>>>>>> pop ebp ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3
> >>>>>>>>> ret Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As can be seen above Olcott's H decides that Px does not
> >>>>>>>>> halt but it is obvious that Px should always halt if H is a
> >>>>>>>>> valid halt decider that always returns a decision to its
> >>>>>>>>> caller (Px). Olcott's H does not return a decision to its
> >>>>>>>>> caller (Px) and is thus invalid.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your false assumptions are directly contradicted by the
> >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _Px()
> >>>>>>>> [00001192](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00001193](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00001195](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00001198](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [00001199](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [0000119c](01) 51 push ecx
> >>>>>>>> [0000119d](05) e8d0fdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>> [000011a2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011a5](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011a6](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [000011a6]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>> [000011d2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d5](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011da](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011df](05) e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>> [000011e4](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011e7](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011e8](05) 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >>>>>>>> [000011ed](05) e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >>>>>>>> [000011f2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011f5](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011f7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011f8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [000011f8]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> >>>>>>>> [000011d2][00101f7f][00000000] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d3][00101f7f][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d5][00101f7b][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011da][00101f77][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011df][00101f73][000011e4] e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11202b
> >>>>>>>> Address_of_H:f72
> >>>>>>>> [00001192][00112017][0011201b] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00001193][00112017][0011201b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00001195][00112017][0011201b] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00001198][00112013][00001192] 50 push eax //
> >>>>>>>> push Px [00001199][00112013][00001192] 8b4d08 mov
> >>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08] [0000119c][0011200f][00001192] 51 push
> >>>>>>>> ecx // push Px [0000119d][0011200b][000011a2]
> >>>>>>>> e8d0fdffff call 00000f72 // call H(Px,Px) H: Infinitely
> >>>>>>>> Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> H knows its own machine address and on this basis it can
> >>>>>>>> easily examine its stored execution_trace of Px (see above)
> >>>>>>>> to determine: (a) Px is calling H with the same arguments
> >>>>>>>> that H was called with. (b) No instructions in Px could
> >>>>>>>> possibly escape this otherwise infinitely recursive
> >>>>>>>> emulation. (c) H aborts its emulation of Px before its call
> >>>>>>>> to H is emulated.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [000011e4][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011e7][00101f7b][00000000] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011e8][00101f77][000004a3] 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >>>>>>>> [000011ed][00101f77][000004a3] e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >>>>>>>> Input_Halts = 0
> >>>>>>>> [000011f2][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011f5][00101f7f][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011f7][00101f83][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011f8][00101f87][00000000] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(880) == 13 Pages
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I see you wish to pointlessly go around in circles. Oh well.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Px() is not a pathological input as defined by the halting
> >>>>>>> problem and [Strachey 1965] as it does not try to do the
> >>>>>>> opposite of what H decides.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Px() always halts so your H gets the answer wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I found that my reply did not make it to all the groups so I
> >>>>>> posted it again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *This general principle refutes conventional halting problem
> >>>>>> proofs* Every simulating halt decider that correctly simulates
> >>>>>> its input until it correctly predicts that this simulated input
> >>>>>> would never reach its final state, correctly rejects this input
> >>>>>> as non-halting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your H does not "correctly predict" that Px() does reach its
> >>>>> final state and so should accept the input as halting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
> >>>>
> >>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves that the
> >>>> above code is correct. People that disagree with verified facts
> >>>> are either incompetent or liars. Since you cannot even understand
> >>>> that the return statement in Px is unreachable code, (to every
> >>>> simulating halt decider H) you would be incompetent.
> >>>
> >>> Not EVERY simulating halt decider, only YOURS gets the answer
> >>> wrong. Px() halts.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Since you cannot even understand that the return statement in Px is
> >> unreachable code, (to *every simulating halt* decider H) you would
> >> be incompetent.
> >
> > Not at all. If I was to design a simulating halt decider then rather
> > than aborting the simulation at the point where P()/Px() calls H I
> > would instead fork the simulation, returning 0 to one branch (the
> > non-halting branch) and 1 to the other branch (the halting branch)
> > and then continue to simulate both branches in parallel thereby
> > getting rid of the "infinite recursion".
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> Yet that is *not* what the actual code specifies. Every function
> called in infinite recursion is not allowed to return to its caller.
The infinite recursion is an artifact of how YOU are trying to solve
the problem; there is no infinite recursion in [Strachey 1965] and
associated proofs.
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 10:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-02 09:20 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 11:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 17:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 11:42 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 18:10 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 12:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 18:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 12:30 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 19:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 13:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 19:44 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 16:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 23:05 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 17:13 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 15:27 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 09:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:21 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 10:30 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:45 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 10:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:51 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 11:05 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 17:07 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 12:35 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 14:51 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-03 16:21 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-03 16:10 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 19:44 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-04 07:45 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 09:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 11:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-04 11:42 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 14:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 14:21 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 18:08 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 11:50 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 14:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 16:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 18:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 22:18 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-07-05 14:24 -0600
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 15:42 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-07-06 00:53 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 19:01 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-05 21:00 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 23:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-06 13:58 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-06 16:13 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 12:19 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 14:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 13:54 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 16:08 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 17:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 20:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 21:35 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 23:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-07 23:09 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-08 07:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-08 10:59 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-08 13:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-08 17:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-09 08:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-07-09 10:22 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-09 13:40 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-09 15:06 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-09 14:18 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-07 22:16 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 19:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-04 15:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-07-05 11:53 +0300
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 07:59 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 08:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 19:31 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-03 13:34 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-02 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-02 14:42 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-02 14:40 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 11:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-12 19:06 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Henrietta Stinkbottom <henri@galabbogosutionallity.net> - 2022-07-02 11:52 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-12 09:56 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-12 22:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 07:07 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-13 08:02 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 11:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-13 11:03 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 14:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 13:47 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 15:51 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-13 14:11 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 19:10 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 21:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 02:20 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 10:25 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:25 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-14 04:42 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 14:56 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 19:20 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-15 05:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:35 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-15 09:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 11:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-07-16 04:23 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 10:24 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-07-16 16:54 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 12:40 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-07-16 20:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Mike fails to comprehend) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 15:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Mike fails to comprehend) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 18:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Mike fails to comprehend) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 18:16 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-17 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 12:43 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 13:56 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 19:18 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 20:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 20:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 21:40 -0500
csiph-web