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 | <20221009183030.000063df@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (14 earlier) <thuunv$h9v6$5@dont-email.me> <20221009181035.00001461@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thuvi1$1ili$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20221009181802.00001ada@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv01i$h9v6$6@dont-email.me> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-10-09 18:30 +0100 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:22:57 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 12:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> The correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H is known to be the
> behavior that H must measure on the basis that the correct simulation
> of a machine description is known to provide the actual behavior of
> this machine description.
>
> What you are saying rejects the notion of a UTM.
What I am saying is that programs are designed to be run rather than
just analyzed by a halt decider.
P(P) halts does it not? i.e. the following PROGRAM halts:
int main()
{
P(P);
}
You claim that H is a pure function and that H(P,P) returns 0 ergo your
H gets the halting decision wrong so 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