Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem

[olcott]

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.

typedef void (*ptr)();
int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider

// 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));
}

Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project)
(a) x86utm operating system
(b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
(c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within Halt7.c
https://liarparadox.org/2022_09_07.zip


--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[Mut...@dastardlyhq.com]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 19:18:40 -0500
olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Once one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider that continues
>to correctly simulate its input until it correctly determines that the

Oh, its you again. Haven't you found another esoteric hobby horse to bore
everyone with by now?

[Bonita Montero]

The halting problem can only be viewed scientifically in fairly
simple programs. With any program of worldly size, that no longer
makes sense. That's why it's all pretty unworldly nonsense for
people who have lost their grip on reality.

[olcott]

The halting theorem prevents any serious funding of termination analysis
research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis

in the same way that the Tarski Undefinability theorem prevents truth
conditional semantics from ever being anchored in a formal definition of
truth, thus hampering AI research funding.

My focus on the halting theorem also simultaneously addresses the
analogous 1931 Gödel incompleteness theorem and the Tarski
Undefinability theorem.

I focus on the HP because it is the only one of the set of three
analogous problems that can be exhaustively analyzed within existing
formal systems. Both Gödel and Tarski require a paradigm shift in the
notion of a formal system before they can be sufficiently analyzed.

Wittgenstein's analysis of Gödel provides a glimpse into this paradigm
shift when he concludes that Gödel's G is simply untrue within its
formal system. https://www.liarparadox.org/Wittgenstein.pdf

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 2022-10-09, olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The halting theorem prevents any serious funding of termination analysis
> research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis

Even if so, you're not making the best of use of the self-funding you
have; your research goes in circles.

If you were funded, and they found out you just post volumes on
Usenet without going anywhere, it's likely the funding would be
swiftly cut off.

It's not a probelm of money.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal

[Tim Rentsch]

Kaz Kylheku <864-11...@kylheku.com> writes:

> On 2022-10-09, olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The halting theorem prevents any serious funding of termination analysis
>> research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
>
> Even if so, you're not making the best of use of the self-funding you
> have; your research goes in circles.
>
> If you were funded, and they found out you just post volumes on
> Usenet without going anywhere, it's likely the funding would be
> swiftly cut off.
>
> It's not a probelm of money.

The problem here is you, responding to this idiot instead of just
ignoring him like all sensible people do. And cross-posting only
makes it worse.

[olcott]

On 10/9/2022 3:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2022-10-09, olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The halting theorem prevents any serious funding of termination analysis
>> research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
>
> Even if so, you're not making the best of use of the self-funding you
> have; your research goes in circles.
>
> If you were funded, and they found out you just post volumes on
> Usenet without going anywhere, it's likely the funding would be
> swiftly cut off.
>
> It's not a probelm of money.
>

Once one accepts the notion of a simulating halt decider that continues

to correctly simulate its input until it correctly determines that this

simulated input would never stop running then the conventional halting

problem proofs are refuted because their "impossible" input becomes
correctly construed as specifying recursive simulation (same idea as
infinite recursion).

An extended conversation with the former editor in chief of the
Communications of the ACM: Moshe Y. Vardi indicated that I must be able
to apply my work to the diagonal argument so I just did that.

*Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof