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:When this very simple idea is very rigorously examined (as it is in my
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.
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?
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:Yet when you carefully examine my paper:
On 4/23/2022 10:58 AM, wij wrote:
On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 22:49:59 UTC+8, olcott wrote: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.
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.
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?
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)?
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:So you are saying that after H makes the correct halt status decision
On 4/23/2022 11:43 AM, wij wrote:
On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:34:55 UTC+8, olcott wrote:You might make a wild guess like this if you make sure to hardly pay
On 4/23/2022 11:29 AM, wij wrote:
On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 00:05:19 UTC+8, olcott wrote:Yet when you carefully examine my paper:
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),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
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.
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?
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)?
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.
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:05:34 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,422 |