info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: The contradiction that the HP is predicated on is detectable ..
0 views
Skip to first unread message
olcott
Jul 27, 2021, 1:59:16 PM7/27/21
to
On 7/27/2021 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> .. due to the infinite recursion missed by Strachey blowing the stack of
> any turing machine simulator with finite memory (stack) size. One
> simply needs to detect out of memory when more than one instance of the
> decider is present in the call stack.
>
This seems correct. I accomplished the same thing differently in my
current paper.
To the best of my knowledge I am the first to derive the key insight
that the conventional HP counter-examples specify infinite recursion to
any simulating halt decider.
It looks like the original specification provided in
the Linz text may be infinitely recursive in that each
TM requires its own input. ...(Olcott:2016)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example
> This is a troll.
>
> Message ends.
>
> /Flibble
>
This is my current paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
> .. due to the infinite recursion missed by Strachey blowing the stack of
> any turing machine simulator with finite memory (stack) size. One
> simply needs to detect out of memory when more than one instance of the
> decider is present in the call stack.
>
This seems correct. I accomplished the same thing differently in my
current paper.
To the best of my knowledge I am the first to derive the key insight
that the conventional HP counter-examples specify infinite recursion to
any simulating halt decider.
It looks like the original specification provided in
the Linz text may be infinitely recursive in that each
TM requires its own input. ...(Olcott:2016)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example
> This is a troll.
>
> Message ends.
>
> /Flibble
>
This is my current paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
olcott
Jul 27, 2021, 5:06:17 PM7/27/21
to
On 7/27/2021 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:14:20 -0500
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>> stacks of limitless length.
>>>
>>
>> Flibble's reasoning is correct, yet based on my 2016 reasoning.
>
> It is based on my own reasoning not yours, dear.
>
> /Flibble
>
It is documented that I came up with the idea of infinitely nested
recursion/simulation in 2016. I have posted this idea very extensively
in this forum long before you even understood the nature of the halting
problem proofs.
It looks like the original specification provided
in the Linz text may be infinitely recursive in
that each TM requires its own input.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example
It was shortly before you posted this message that you showed that you
understood the difference between refuting the halting problem proofs
and solving the halting problem.
On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> examine) which rely on that mistake. >
> /Flibble
>
Prior to this there was no indication that you understood the mechanism
of the conventional proofs at all. After this you proved that you
understood this mechanism far better that most everyone else.
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:14:20 -0500
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/2021 2:02 PM, Peter wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> .. due to the infinite recursion missed by Strachey blowing the
>>>> stack of any turing machine simulator with finite memory (stack)
>>>> size. One
>>>
>>> Turing machines don't have stacks. Stack machines have (of course)
>> On 7/27/2021 2:02 PM, Peter wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> .. due to the infinite recursion missed by Strachey blowing the
>>>> stack of any turing machine simulator with finite memory (stack)
>>>> size. One
>>>
>>> stacks of limitless length.
>>>
>>
>> Flibble's reasoning is correct, yet based on my 2016 reasoning.
>
> It is based on my own reasoning not yours, dear.
>
> /Flibble
>
It is documented that I came up with the idea of infinitely nested
recursion/simulation in 2016. I have posted this idea very extensively
in this forum long before you even understood the nature of the halting
problem proofs.
It looks like the original specification provided
in the Linz text may be infinitely recursive in
that each TM requires its own input.
It was shortly before you posted this message that you showed that you
understood the difference between refuting the halting problem proofs
and solving the halting problem.
On 7/10/2021 12:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> I agree with Olcott that a halt decider can NOT be part of that which
> is being decided (see [Strachey 1965]) which, if Olcott is correct,
> falsifies a collection of proofs (which I don't have the time to
> examine) which rely on that mistake. >
> /Flibble
>
Prior to this there was no indication that you understood the mechanism
of the conventional proofs at all. After this you proved that you
understood this mechanism far better that most everyone else.
Mr Flibble
Jul 28, 2021, 12:35:18 PM7/28/21
to
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:06:09 -0500
Two people can arrive at the same conclusion independently you know. I
pointed out to you that [Strachey 1965] was pathological/erroneous due
to the decider being part of or called by that which is being decided
(P) which gives arise to a necessarily tri-state decision result with
the third result state being that P is invalid.
/Flibble
pointed out to you that [Strachey 1965] was pathological/erroneous due
to the decider being part of or called by that which is being decided
(P) which gives arise to a necessarily tri-state decision result with
the third result state being that P is invalid.
/Flibble
olcott
Jul 28, 2021, 1:31:15 PM7/28/21
to
0 new messages