Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem |
| Date | 2022-10-09 12:57 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <thv21i$h9v6$8@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <20221009181802.00001ada@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv01i$h9v6$6@dont-email.me> <20221009183030.000063df@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv1i8$h9v6$7@dont-email.me> <20221009185136.00006077@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
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); }
--
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