Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem |
| Date | 2022-10-09 12:14 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <thuvi1$1ili$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (11 earlier) <20221009173938.00007e0e@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thutsj$h9v6$4@dont-email.me> <20221009174943.00000fa9@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thuunv$h9v6$5@dont-email.me> <20221009181035.00001461@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
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.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
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