info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: All my reviewers expect a halt decider to have psychic power
8 views
Skip to first unread message
olcott
May 7, 2022, 5:50:43 PM5/7/22
to
On 4/23/2022 12:29 PM, wij wrote:
> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 01:20:23 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/23/2022 12:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:52:00 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2022 11:43 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:34:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/23/2022 11:29 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:05:19 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2022 10:58 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 22:49:59 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers expect H(P,P) to compute the halt status of P(P),
>>>>>>>>>> yet the behavior specified by the input to H(P,P) is not the same as the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by P(P).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If using this common concept, the halting decider H, when given an argument P
>>>>>>>>> (or P P), is supposed to answer whether P(P) will halt or not. This is a very
>>>>>>>>> simple, easy idea to understand even for teenager students.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When this very simple idea is very rigorously examined (as it is in my
>>>>>>>> paper) one sees that this requires the halt decider to be a mind reader
>>>>>>>> and compute the halt status other than the actual halt status specified
>>>>>>>> by its actual input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your wording/interpretations/paper change all the time. No idea what this new
>>>>>>> excuse 'mind reader' might mean. As said, the Halting Problem is very simple
>>>>>>> and intuitive.
>>>>>>> H should be a decider that computes the actual halt status of P(P). P is the
>>>>>>> H's actual argument input.
>>>>>>> I expect you might try to find some bugs of those descriptions to rephrasing it
>>>>>>> in your favor. But, what would be the point? What is the usefulness of POOP?
>>>>>> Yet when you carefully examine my paper:
>>>>>> Anyone that is an expert in the C programming language, the x86
>>>>>> programming language, exactly how C translates into x86 and what an x86
>>>>>> processor emulator is can easily verify that the correctly simulated
>>>>>> input to H(P,P) by H specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>>>> Simply ignoring the verified facts is a ridiculously foolish was to form
>>>>>> any actual rebuttal.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>>> You already verified the fact that H(P,P) will be in an infinite recursive call
>>>>> (thus, undecidable). Why you say H(P,P)==false (or true)?
>>>> You might make a wild guess like this if you make sure to hardly pay
>>>> attention. When you actually pay close attention and carefully study my
>>>> paper it is very easy to see that H sees the same infinitely repeating
>>>> pattern that we see, thus can abort its simulation and reject its input.
>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>
>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>>> address address data code language
>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>>> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>> "Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped" means
>>> your x86utm emulator has encountered an infinite recursive call.
>>> This is referred to as "undecidable". This is the fact.
>> So you are saying that after H makes the correct halt status decision
>> that this correct halt status decision is impossible to make.
>>
>> That is just like my example a smashing a Boston cream pie in your face
>> and while this pie drips from your face you deny that the pie exists.
>
> Your H did not show 'correct decision' but 'unreachable' (exactly what the HP says).
>
> This is like "0.999..." (or repeating decimal) problems: Infinite repeating
> simply means INFINITE repeating. Please, respect what it is.
My H proves that H(P,P)== false
on the basis that H does correctly compute the mapping from its input
parameters to its own final reject state on the basis of the actual
behavior actually specified by its input parameters.
The details of this are shown here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
A bunch of goofy people here do not understand that this meets the
definition of a correct halt decider.
They believe that H must compute a mapping from non-inputs. This is
quite nuts because they already know that no decider can ever do this.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 01:20:23 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/23/2022 12:15 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:52:00 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2022 11:43 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:34:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/23/2022 11:29 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:05:19 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2022 10:58 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 22:49:59 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers expect H(P,P) to compute the halt status of P(P),
>>>>>>>>>> yet the behavior specified by the input to H(P,P) is not the same as the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by P(P).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If using this common concept, the halting decider H, when given an argument P
>>>>>>>>> (or P P), is supposed to answer whether P(P) will halt or not. This is a very
>>>>>>>>> simple, easy idea to understand even for teenager students.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When this very simple idea is very rigorously examined (as it is in my
>>>>>>>> paper) one sees that this requires the halt decider to be a mind reader
>>>>>>>> and compute the halt status other than the actual halt status specified
>>>>>>>> by its actual input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your wording/interpretations/paper change all the time. No idea what this new
>>>>>>> excuse 'mind reader' might mean. As said, the Halting Problem is very simple
>>>>>>> and intuitive.
>>>>>>> H should be a decider that computes the actual halt status of P(P). P is the
>>>>>>> H's actual argument input.
>>>>>>> I expect you might try to find some bugs of those descriptions to rephrasing it
>>>>>>> in your favor. But, what would be the point? What is the usefulness of POOP?
>>>>>> Yet when you carefully examine my paper:
>>>>>> Anyone that is an expert in the C programming language, the x86
>>>>>> programming language, exactly how C translates into x86 and what an x86
>>>>>> processor emulator is can easily verify that the correctly simulated
>>>>>> input to H(P,P) by H specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>>>> Simply ignoring the verified facts is a ridiculously foolish was to form
>>>>>> any actual rebuttal.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>
>>>>> You already verified the fact that H(P,P) will be in an infinite recursive call
>>>>> (thus, undecidable). Why you say H(P,P)==false (or true)?
>>>> You might make a wild guess like this if you make sure to hardly pay
>>>> attention. When you actually pay close attention and carefully study my
>>>> paper it is very easy to see that H sees the same infinitely repeating
>>>> pattern that we see, thus can abort its simulation and reject its input.
>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>
>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
>>>> address address data code language
>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
>>>> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
>>>> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
>>>> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
>>>> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>> --
>>>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>>>
>>>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>
>>> "Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped" means
>>> your x86utm emulator has encountered an infinite recursive call.
>>> This is referred to as "undecidable". This is the fact.
>> So you are saying that after H makes the correct halt status decision
>> that this correct halt status decision is impossible to make.
>>
>> That is just like my example a smashing a Boston cream pie in your face
>> and while this pie drips from your face you deny that the pie exists.
>
> Your H did not show 'correct decision' but 'unreachable' (exactly what the HP says).
>
> This is like "0.999..." (or repeating decimal) problems: Infinite repeating
> simply means INFINITE repeating. Please, respect what it is.
My H proves that H(P,P)== false
on the basis that H does correctly compute the mapping from its input
parameters to its own final reject state on the basis of the actual
behavior actually specified by its input parameters.
The details of this are shown here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
A bunch of goofy people here do not understand that this meets the
definition of a correct halt decider.
They believe that H must compute a mapping from non-inputs. This is
quite nuts because they already know that no decider can ever do this.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
0 new messages