Re: An idea for a simulating halt decider [Gödel 1931]

[olcott]

On 7/6/2022 11:52 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 11:39:31 -0500
> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/6/2022 11:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 17:24:07 +0100
>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mr Flibble <fli...@reddwarf.jmc> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 13:50:16 +0100
>>>>> Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/07/2022 19:49, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> The idea of fork-simulation halting decider indeed looked much
>>>>>>> advanced and promising than the oral-based halting decider
>>>>>>> (POOH). Chance might be good refuting the HP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by "refuting the HP" you mean "constructing a halt
>>>>>> decider", then you have as much chance as refuting that 2+2 == 4
>>>>>> [in all cases, with the usual meanings of those words]. All the
>>>>>> obfuscation of the last couple of decades does absolutely nothing
>>>>>> to indicate any actual error in any of the several known proofs
>>>>>> that no general halt decider can exist. If you, or PO, ever did
>>>>>> manage to produce an actual purported "H", then we already know
>>>>>> how to construct an actual counterexample that refutes your, or
>>>>>> his, claim. That's all anyone really needs to know. We can sit
>>>>>> back and wait however long it takes for an actual claimed "H"
>>>>>> [whether in C or x86 code or as a TM] to appear, and then it is a
>>>>>> matter of moments to produce a program and input that "H" fails
>>>>>> with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by "refuting the HP" you mean something else, then you
>>>>>> need to explain further, as "refuting" in English applies to
>>>>>> claims rather than to problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> My solution bears no relation to Olcott's which has obvious flaws
>>>>> and unlike Olcott I certainly have not been engaged in any form of
>>>>> obfuscation "for years": I only thought of my idea a few days ago
>>>>> and my original post is simple, clear and to the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> So rather than just hand-waving why don't you point out any actual
>>>>> errors in my proposed solution, Mr Andy Walker.
>>>>
>>>> I thought you claimed a three-way decider? That's fine. There's
>>>> nothing to say about such things other than to ask how good it is.
>>>> A really good three-way halt decider would be very useful in
>>>> practice, but the usual offerings just refuses to decide a huge
>>>> category of problem instances and would be no use in practice.
>>>>
>>>> Try not to be a crank. It's a crank tactic to put the onus on
>>>> everyone else to show that some vague idea is wrong because it
>>>> suggests you just want people to talk to you. Publish (and in this
>>>> case I am including here), and if there's a flaw it will be pointed
>>>> out quickly enough.
>>>
>>> I have published: my original post in this thread is simple, clear
>>> and to the point: certainly not vague. As far as being a
>>> "three-way" decider: the third outcome is not a decision of
>>> "unknown" it is an exception thrown when an "Impossible Program"
>>> contradiction is detected.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Provide the full source-code for a fully operational working example
>> of this. Now that I converted H into a pure function of its inputs I
>> will be able to publish its full source code and the source code of
>> the x86utm operating system.
>
> No, I have better things to do with my time.
>
> /Flibble
>

So you expressly acknowledge that your ideas may simply be too vague to
properly review. For example you never even mentioned the criterion
measure of your pathological input decider.

I published one of these a long time ago.
It applies to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem

Truth_Bearer(G) ≡ ((PA ⊢ G) ∨ (PA ⊢ ¬G))

*Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel



--
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]

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 12:10:37 -0500

I clearly stated how pathological input is detected in my original post.

/Flibble