Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem |
| Message-ID | <20221009181802.00001ada@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <thutsj$h9v6$4@dont-email.me> <20221009174943.00000fa9@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thuunv$h9v6$5@dont-email.me> <20221009181035.00001461@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thuvi1$1ili$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-10-09 18:18 +0100 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:14:39 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 12:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:00:46 -0500
> > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/9/2022 11:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 11:46:10 -0500
> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/9/2022 11:39 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 10:48:51 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/9/2022 10:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 09:32:54 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once one accepts the notion of a simulating halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider that continues to correctly simulate its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input until it correctly determines that the this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would never stop running then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional halting problem proofs are refuted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that your decider DOESN'T simulate until it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECT decides that the ACTUAL input will never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts, but stops when a DIFFERENT input is shown to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *straw man*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> real argument.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strawman deception try again using the exact words
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I actually said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't what I did, so you are just shown to be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> LIAR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
> >>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P) reports that its
> >>>>>>>>>>>> input halts HERE: goto HERE; // P loops and never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> return; // else P halts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are asserting that the simulation of P by H would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eventually stop running on its own without being aborted
> >>>>>>>>>>>> by H?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, THAT is the strawman.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I am asserting that the CORRECT simulation of P would
> >>>>>>>>>>> eventually reach a final state,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *You changed the words again*
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are asserting that the simulation
> >>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>> would eventually stop running on its own without being
> >>>>>>>>>> aborted by H?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, that's YOUR strawman.
> >>>>>>>> If you knew anything about logic you would understand that
> >>>>>>>> this is a premise: *Once one accepts the notion of a
> >>>>>>>> simulating halt decider*
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> One is not allowed to reject the premise. One is only allowed
> >>>>>>>> to verify that the conclusion follows from the premise.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> SHD can only refute halting problem proofs if it is a pure
> >>>>>>> function;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, it took me three full time months to convert H into a pure
> >>>>>> function. I merely apply the exact same infinite recursion
> >>>>>> criteria that is used to compute the halt status of:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yet I apply this criteria immediately before recursive
> >>>>>> simulation actually occurs. When H recognizes that P is about
> >>>>>> to call H in recursive simulation H aborts its simulation of P
> >>>>>> before its first call to H is ever invoked.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If your H is a pure function and H(P,P) returns 0 then H(P,P)
> >>>>> called from P(P) would also return 0
> >>>>
> >>>> <sarcasm>
> >>>> Sure because everyone knows that a function that is never invoked
> >>>> must still return a value in the same way we must be able to
> >>>> start the engine of a car that has no engine.
> >>>> </sarcasm>
> >>>
> >>> H(P,P) called from P(P) is the FIRST invocation of H(P,P) so is
> >>> invoked, i.e. main() calling P(P) instead of H(P,P).
> >>>
> >>> Your H is not a halt decider as it gets the halting decision
> >>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Turing computable functions are not allowed to compute the mapping
> >> of non-inputs or anything that cannot be encoded as a finite
> >> string. That you fail to understand this is not any rebuttal of
> >> what I have said.
> >
> > If H is a pure function and H(P,P) returns 0 then if P(P) is called
> > from main() P(P) will halt which means H got the halting decision
> > wrong meaning H is not a halt decider.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> You continue to fail to understand that Turing computable functions
> are not allowed to consider the behavior of non-inputs. That you fail
> to understand this is not any error on my part.
English is ambiguous, lets try code instead:
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
P(P);
Output("P(P) halted ergo H(P, P) should have returned 1");
}
Given the above it is obvious to all that H is not a halt decider.
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 19:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 19:29 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 20:49 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 20:22 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 21:43 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-08 21:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 22:44 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 22:31 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 09:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 10:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:25 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 11:40 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:43 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:39 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 11:46 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:49 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:10 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 12:14 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:18 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:22 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:30 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:51 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:57 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:07 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 13:10 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:12 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:23 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:28 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:31 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 13:40 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:44 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:03 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 20:06 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 14:39 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:51 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:03 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-10 10:25 +0200
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 10:37 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 18:57 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 10:41 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 14:52 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:09 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:23 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:33 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:38 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:49 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 20:53 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-09 14:13 +0300
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 07:26 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-09 09:23 +0000
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 15:29 +0200
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:47 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 15:17 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 16:32 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 13:42 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 18:47 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 18:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 19:45 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-10 19:06 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 20:16 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:30 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:00 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 22:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:34 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:24 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 22:44 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:59 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:14 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2022-10-09 20:43 +0000
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 12:05 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 19:06 -0400
csiph-web