XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

On 6/16/2022 2:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:

Given olcott's code,

#include <stdint.h>
typedef void (*ptr)();

void P(ptr x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}

int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
}

and olcott's assertion that H is a pure function and H(P,P) == 0,
then, P should halt as H should also return 0 to P

You mean P(P) should halt, and it does. PO does not dispute this fact.
Not only has he posted a trace of P(P) halting, he has clearly stated
that H(P,P) == 0 "is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".[1]

(pure functions
ALWAYS return the same result for the same arguments with no side
effects). P doesn't halt so H is erroneous; olcott, it's really that
simple.

Except that he is now just asserting that H(P,P) == 0 is correct about something else (the "correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)") and the mistakes in that irrelevant statement are keeping him supplied with the attention he craves. You might consider not giving him what he wants.

[1] Message-ID: <c8idnbFAF6C8QuP8nZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com>

When a simulating halt decider rejects all inputs as non-halting
whenever it correctly detects that its correct and complete simulation
of its input would never reach the final state of this input then all
[these] inputs (including pathological inputs) are decided correctly.

*computation that halts* … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)


--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

On 6/16/22 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/16/2022 2:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:

Given olcott's code,

#include <stdint.h>
typedef void (*ptr)();

void P(ptr x)
{
    if (H(x, x))
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return;
}

int main()
{
    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
}

and olcott's assertion that H is a pure function and H(P,P) == 0,
then, P should halt as H should also return 0 to P

You mean P(P) should halt, and it does.  PO does not dispute this fact.
Not only has he posted a trace of P(P) halting, he has clearly stated
that H(P,P) == 0 "is the correct answer even though P(P) halts".[1]

(pure functions
ALWAYS return the same result for the same arguments with no side
effects). P doesn't halt so H is erroneous; olcott, it's really that
simple.

Except that he is now just asserting that H(P,P) == 0 is correct about
something else (the "correct simulation of the input to H(P,P)") and the
mistakes in that irrelevant statement are keeping him supplied with the
attention he craves.  You might consider not giving him what he wants.

[1] Message-ID: <c8idnbFAF6C8QuP8nZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com>

When a simulating halt decider rejects all inputs as non-halting
whenever it correctly detects that its correct and complete simulation
of its input would never reach the final state of this input then all
[these] inputs (including pathological inputs) are decided correctly.

*computation that halts* … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. (317-320)

Wrong, you can't talk about H's correcgt and complete emulation of its
input unless it actually does that. Until you can show how H does an
infinite number of steps of emulation in finite time to return the
answer, you are claiming an inpossibility.

Yes, if infinity was a finite number, all sorts of strange things can
happen, but it isn't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)