Re: olcott, it's really simple [ succinct summation ]

[olcott]

On 6/16/2022 2:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>
>> Given olcott's code,
>>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>
>> void P(ptr x)
>> {
>> if (H(x, x))
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
>> }
>>
>> and olcott's assertion that H is a pure function and H(P,P) == 0,
>> then, P should halt as H should also return 0 to P
>
> You mean P(P) should halt, and it does. PO does not dispute this fact.
> Not only has he posted a trace of P(P) halting, he has clearly stated
> that H(P,P) == 0 "is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".[1]
>
>> (pure functions
>> ALWAYS return the same result for the same arguments with no side
>> effects). P doesn't halt so H is erroneous; olcott, it's really that
>> simple.
>
> Except that he is now just asserting that H(P,P) == 0 is correct about
> something else (the "correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)") and the
> mistakes in that irrelevant statement are keeping him supplied with the
> attention he craves. You might consider not giving him what he wants.
>
> [1] Message-ID: <c8idnbFAF6C8QuP8...@giganews.com>
>

When a simulating halt decider rejects all inputs as non-halting
whenever it correctly detects that its correct and complete simulation
of its input would never reach the final state of this input then all
[these] inputs (including pathological inputs) are decided correctly.

*computation that halts* … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)


--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

[Richard Damon]

Wrong, you can't talk about H's correcgt and complete emulation of its
input unless it actually does that. Until you can show how H does an
infinite number of steps of emulation in finite time to return the
answer, you are claiming an inpossibility.

Yes, if infinity was a finite number, all sorts of strange things can
happen, but it isn't.