0 views

Skip to first unread message

May 24, 2022, 10:40:11 AMMay 24

to

All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily

verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical

background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:

Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of finite

strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for

returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret" instruction.

(1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.

The only other remaining objection is whether or not a halt decider must

compute the mapping of its input finite strings to an accept or reject

state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its

input OR SOME OTHER MEASURE.

A decider must compute the mapping from its inputs finite strings to an

accept of reject state. A computable function must compute the mapping

of from inputs finite strings to its corresponding output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

(2) Good computer science shows that a halt decider must

compute the mapping from its input finite strings to an accept or

reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by

its input. Since P(P) is not an input to H(P,P) it is excluded.

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

verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical

background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:

Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of finite

strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for

returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret" instruction.

(1) Good software engineering proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct.

The only other remaining objection is whether or not a halt decider must

compute the mapping of its input finite strings to an accept or reject

state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its

input OR SOME OTHER MEASURE.

A decider must compute the mapping from its inputs finite strings to an

accept of reject state. A computable function must compute the mapping

of from inputs finite strings to its corresponding output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

(2) Good computer science shows that a halt decider must

compute the mapping from its input finite strings to an accept or

reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by

its input. Since P(P) is not an input to H(P,P) it is excluded.

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

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu