Re: Are my reviewers dishonest or technically incompetent ?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Mr Flibble
May 22, 2022, 2:05:58 PM5/22/22
to
On Sun, 22 May 2022 13:00:31 -0500
olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine
> address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the
> infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting
> behavior pattern.
The proofs you are attempting to refute doe not have any infinite
recursion thus you continue to bark up the wrong tree.
/Flibble
olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine
> address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the
> infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting
> behavior pattern.
The proofs you are attempting to refute doe not have any infinite
recursion thus you continue to bark up the wrong tree.
/Flibble
olcott
May 22, 2022, 2:23:24 PM5/22/22
to
that you are not. My paper shows how every conventional HP proof is
refuted on the basis that the input to H(P,P) (and its TM equivalents)
specifies infinitely nested simulation to its halt decider.
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
Mr Flibble
May 22, 2022, 2:27:01 PM5/22/22
to
On Sun, 22 May 2022 13:23:16 -0500
olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 1:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 May 2022 13:00:31 -0500
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine
> >> address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the
> >> infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting
> >> behavior pattern.
> >
> > The proofs you are attempting to refute doe not have any infinite
> > recursion thus you continue to bark up the wrong tree.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> So you simply guess that you must be correct and totally ignore my
> proof that you are not. My paper shows how every conventional HP
> proof is refuted on the basis that the input to H(P,P) (and its TM
> equivalents) specifies infinitely nested simulation to its halt
> decider.
But they don't though: it is YOU who is introducing the idea of an
olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/22/2022 1:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 May 2022 13:00:31 -0500
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine
> >> address with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the
> >> infinite recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting
> >> behavior pattern.
> >
> > The proofs you are attempting to refute doe not have any infinite
> > recursion thus you continue to bark up the wrong tree.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> So you simply guess that you must be correct and totally ignore my
> proof that you are not. My paper shows how every conventional HP
> proof is refuted on the basis that the input to H(P,P) (and its TM
> equivalents) specifies infinitely nested simulation to its halt
> decider.
erroneous infinitely nested simulation.
/Flibble
olcott
May 22, 2022, 2:31:03 PM5/22/22
to
determine that the C function named P would never reach its last
instruction when correctly emulated by H.
That you would disagree with verified facts makes you either technically
incompetent or a liar.
It is dead obvious that when H(P,P) correctly emulates its input that
the first 7 instructions of P are emulated.
It is also dead obvious that when P calls H(P,P) that H emulates the
first 7 instructions of P again.
This makes it dead obvious that the correct x86 emulation of the input
to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction and halts.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages