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 | <20221009190712.000022d3@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (18 earlier) <thv01i$h9v6$6@dont-email.me> <20221009183030.000063df@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv1i8$h9v6$7@dont-email.me> <20221009185136.00006077@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv21i$h9v6$8@dont-email.me> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-10-09 19:07 +0100 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:57:05 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 12:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
> H1(P,P) reports on the behavior of int main() { P(P); }
> H(P,P) is not allowed to report on the behavior of int main() { P(P);
> }
>
Given:
int main()
{
H(P,P);
}
H(P,P) is NOT deciding on main() but on P(P) so why would there be a
mysterious H1 deciding on main()?
You claim that H is a pure function in which case it doesn't matter if
it is being called from main() or from P(P) called from main(). You
are now trying to invent something else that decides on main() rather
than what main() calls as some kind of bullshit diversionary tactic.
H(P,P) returns non-halting and yet P(P) halts ergo 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