Re: Halting problem proofs refuted (Flibble Signaling Decider) [--Flibble violates my copyright--]

0 views
Skip to first unread message

olcott

unread,
Sep 24, 2022, 9:29:52 AMSep 24
to
On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Hi!
>
> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original solution
> to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging with Olcott and
> his non-solution to the halting problem.)
If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then at least
one person could correctly point out an error. So far no one has done
that. Many people did point out their own false assumptions though.

> I have an idea for a signaling simulating halt decider that forks the
> simulation into two branches if the input calls the halt decider as
> per [Strachey 1965]'s "Impossible Program":
>
> void P(void (*x)())
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> std::cout << "Input halts: " << H(P, P) << std::endl;
> }
>
> When the simulator detects the call to H in P

This violates my copyright and would not work because you copied my idea
incorrectly. H could detect a call to itself in P that does not have P
as its input. This P could terminate normally.

> it forks the simulation
> into a non-halting branch (returning 0 to P) and a halting branch
> (returning 1 to P) and continues the simulation of these two branches
> in parallel.
>
> If the non-halting branch is determined to halt AND the halting branch
> is determined to not halt then pathology is detected and reported via
> a sNaP (signaling Not a Program) signal (analogous to IEEE 754's
> sNaN (signaling Not a Number) signal)
>
> If EITHER branch is determined to be correctly decided then that will
> be the decision of the halting decider.
>
> Crucially this scheme will handle (and correctly decide) the
> following case whereby the result of H is discarded by the input:
>
> void Px(void (*x)())
> {
> (void) H(x, x);
> return;
> }
>
> Obviously my idea necessitates extending the definition of a halt
> decider:
>
> 1) Decider decision is HALTS if input halts.
> 2) Decider decision is NON-HALTING if input does not halt.
> 3) Decider rejects pathological input as invalid by signaling sNaP.
>
> Thoughts? I am probably missing something obvious as my idea
> appears to refute [Strachey 1965] and associated HP proofs which
> great minds have mulled over for decades.
>

It violates my copyright and would not work because you copied my work
incorrectly.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer


olcott

unread,
Sep 24, 2022, 1:46:24 PMSep 24
to
On 9/24/2022 12:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 08:29:47 -0500
> olcott <polc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2022 7:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> (N.B. I will continue to boast about this important original
>>> solution to the halting problem until all of you stop engaging with
>>> Olcott and his non-solution to the halting problem.)
>> If my rebuttal to the halting problem proofs was incorrect then at
>> least one person could correctly point out an error. So far no one
>> has done that. Many people did point out their own false assumptions
>> though.
>>
>>> I have an idea for a signaling simulating halt decider that forks
>>> the simulation into two branches if the input calls the halt
>>> decider as per [Strachey 1965]'s "Impossible Program":
>>>
>>> void P(void (*x)())
>>> {
>>> if (H(x, x))
>>> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
>>> return;
>>> }


*Here is a copy of my function dating back before any of your versions*

On 4/15/2022 1:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x)) //
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }

(a) Three of the names are identical.
(b) The structure is identical.
(c) You added the same "return" instruction that I added.
(d) You converted the u32 x parameter to void function pointer as I have.

You copied my work verbatim, then applied the exact same adaptations to
my work that I applied, and only changed the name of the loop.

*A court of law would construe this as copyright violation*
*Cease and desist violating my copyright*
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages