Path: buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:17:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 19:17:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ liar by definition ] Content-Language: en-US Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math References: <87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Followup-To: comp.theory From: olcott In-Reply-To: <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Lines: 112 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-XgbipRWptefvmcVo/TpeAdwMpns53pex7vqqTxhUjT2CbQdHTsDE0ThXDmY0/OqbygHqLFmtDujn6g8!o7r33JoK4g3151HeTBrNpFBOfIBDKj9OISTMtRMTNsyDWC0igtSH6YQZqEwRkq5oCVRyms2r/bop X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 7190 On 4/14/2022 7:12 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott writes: > >> On 4/14/2022 3:54 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott writes: >>> >>>> On 4/14/2022 11:40 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>> olcott writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>> olcott writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) is non halting. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Then you are either (a) doing it wrong, or (b) wrong to have said that >>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts. Oh, there is a third (c) you are using poetic license, and >>>>>>>>>>> simulating the input means something silly. It's literal nonsense to >>>>>>>>>>> there's a lot of scope for you make up some silly meaning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When mere rhetoric goes against easily verified facts rhetoric loses: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your own claim: H(P,P) == false is "correct" even though P(P) halts. >>>>>>>>> That's not rhetoric. You've been too clear about this attempt. You >>>>>>>>> need to try a new ruse. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because the input to H(P,P) is non-halting then nothing in the >>>>>>>> universe can possibly contradict the fact that it is non-halting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Being generous, the "input" to H in the call H(P,P) is just two >>>>>>> pointers. They are neither halting nor non-halting -- they are just >>>>>>> pointers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Up until, now I was prepared to take your words metaphorically, but >>>>>>> since you duck the key question of what "the input to H(P,P) is >>>>>>> non-halting" means, >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure when I make to to explain ever details many hundreds of times >>>>>> damned liars will say that I never mentioned any of this. >>>>> Just use the right terms. H(P,P) has not input. The call has >>>>> arguments. They are just pointers. Pointers are not halting nor are >>>>> they non halting. Given that this mantra is the core of what you are >>>>> now claiming, I would have thought you would want to avoid it being >>>>> patentent nonsense. >>>>> >>>>>> The input to H is the only way that finite strings can be passed to a >>>>>> "C" function and points to the finite string of the machine code of P. >>>>> H has no input. Do you mean the two pointer arguments? >>>>> >>>>>> The simulating halt decider H uses an x86 emulator to simulate its >>>>>> input (P,P) and finds that it would never reach its own final state in >>>>>> an unlimited number of simulated steps. >>>>> >>>>> (P,P) is too vague. What needs to be simulated is the first pointer >>>>> being called as a function with the second as it's argument. I.e. the >>>>> call P(P) is what should be simulated. >>>> >>>> That the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its >>>> own final state proves that this input is not-halting. >>>> >>>> Adding all of the tedious details that you suggest does not change >>>> this fact. >>> >>> If you add all the corrections, sorry, "tedious details", it contradicts >>> what you've said in the past. With the errors left in place, the naive >>> reader won't knowing exactly what's being said -- and I think that's >>> deliberate. >>> >>> For example, why talk about simulation at all since simulations of >>> computations halt or don't halt if and only if the computations do >>> themselves? Well, it adds yet another puff of smoke to the mirrors >>> you've got in there already like what that "its" refers to (since >>> nothing here has a final state), or what non-halting pointers are. >>> "The input to H(P,P)" should mean the two pointers, P and P. Simulating >>> them should mean simulating the call P(P) and the simulation "not >>> reaching its own final state" should mean that the simulation of P(P) >>> does not halt. And that happens if, and only if, the call P(P) itself >>> does not halt. >>> >>> I honestly have no idea if that is what you mean, but if it is, it's >>> wrong because P(P) halts. You are probably just trying to cover that >>> up. >> >> That a non input halts, converts the world to Fascism or opens a very >> popular brothel is totally unrelated to the easily confirmed fact that >> the input to H(P,P)* does not halt. > > The correct value of H(P,P) is determined by the halting status of what > you call a non input: LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE As long as the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) would never halt then we know it is non-halting. Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition. Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition. Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition. Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition. Anyone that disagrees with this is a liar by definition. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer