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 | <20221009185136.00006077@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (16 earlier) <thuvi1$1ili$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20221009181802.00001ada@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv01i$h9v6$6@dont-email.me> <20221009183030.000063df@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv1i8$h9v6$7@dont-email.me> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-10-09 18:51 +0100 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:48:55 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 12:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> H1(P,P) specifies a different sequence of configurations than H(P,P)
> thus the value that H1 returns can vary from what H(P,P) returns.
>
> When one simply assumes that pathological self-reference has no
> effect on a sequence of configurations one is proven to be incorrect.
P(P) is still calling H not this mysterious H1 you have just invented.
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