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: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <87czhm1m9c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IZ-dnX8Uh_2iBMj_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <87sfqhzu5h.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EYSdnbbaVLzwvsv_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <87wnftycf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <acWdna9QAMDTs8v_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
 <87a6cpyah6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <B6-dnWRCiaTipsv_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
 <87bkx5vvi5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9-mdnVlBfvzRbsv_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
 <87tuawvko7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <hfGdnW1c_aTTssr_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <87wnfstwnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yvSdnTV1yaEt8cr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <87k0brspnx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <apCdnQvgYZorqMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
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 <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> 
>> On 4/14/2022 3:54 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2022 11:40 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/14/2022 9:30 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 6:02 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/13/2022 2:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> 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