olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
This is the key basis of my refutation of the halting theorem:
The halting theorem counter-examples present infinitely nested
simulation (non-halting) behavior to every simulating halt decider.
Not a refutation of anything.
I presented this to Ben more than four years ago and he successfully
changed the subject with various dishonest dodges so that it could not
be properly evaluated until now.
Liar.
Infinitely Recursive input on HP Proofs
peteolcott Mar 11, 2017, 3:13:03 PM
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/NcFS02hKs1U
This was a post about a different topic. You are confused even about
what you were saying back then. I've explained in anther reply. You
are now saying the same thing over and over, so I won't copy my reply
out here.
All of the "rebuttals" to the {key basis of my refutation} have taken
the form of the strawman error, here is the most common
The halting theorem does not specify a simulating halt decider.
The most common one is that false is the wrong answer for a halting computation. That's the error I see most commonly pointed out.
You were clear, even then, that your "solution" or "rebuttal" or
whatever was to redefine halting:
"This definition of halting circumvents the pathological
self-reference error for every simulating halt decider:
An input is decided to be halting only if its simulation never needs
to be stopped by any simulating halt decider anywhere in its entire
invocation chain.
On that basis:
Ĥ(<Ĥ>) ⊢* Ĥ.qn
H(<Ĥ>,<Ĥ>) ⊢* H.qn"
There you are (May 17 2017) clearly stating that you've defined H
rejecting a halting computation to be correct! I must say I'd forgotten
how long you have been flogging this dead horse.
(There is an error of logic where you think that being specific -- some special kind of decider -- gets round a proof that is about all TMs, but
you present that error only every now and then.)
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 9/28/2021 10:13 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 9/27/2021 8:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:No answer to this of course.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 9/27/2021 3:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
All of the "rebuttals" to the {key basis of my refutation} have taken >>>>>>>> the form of the strawman error, here is the most commonThe most common one is that false is the wrong answer for a halting >>>>>>> computation. That's the error I see most commonly pointed out.
The halting theorem does not specify a simulating halt decider. >>>>>>>
You were clear, even then, that your "solution" or "rebuttal" or >>>>>>> whatever was to redefine halting:
"This definition of halting circumvents the pathological
self-reference error for every simulating halt decider:
An input is decided to be halting only if its simulation never needs
to be stopped by any simulating halt decider anywhere in its entire
invocation chain.
On that basis:
Ĥ(<Ĥ>) ⊢* Ĥ.qn
H(<Ĥ>,<Ĥ>) ⊢* H.qn"
There you are (May 17 2017) clearly stating that you've defined H >>>>>>> rejecting a halting computation to be correct! I must say I'd forgotten
how long you have been flogging this dead horse.
"if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts" and "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt" areĤ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
Deceptive removal of Linz's annotations. I've told you before that you >>>>> should not do that.
I merely adapted his annotations to be more clear.
perfectly clear. There are what the halting theorem is about --
halting. Replacing then with your junk is dishonest. Stop it.
The halt decider is at Ĥ.qx. The halt decider is not at Ĥ.q0.
And Linz's annotations are the correct ones. If you don't understand
why, ask. If you do (and you claim to simply ave clified them) leave
them in place.
The halt decider does not decide that halt status of itself.
And Linz's annotation are the correct ones.
The halt decider decides the halt status of its input.
And Linz's annotation are still the correct ones.
The input to the halt decider at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
And it is still a lie to remove Linz's correct annotations from the
lines you write above.
Since you already know these things are true denying them is
dishonest.
I have not denied these things. You have removed the correct
descriptions about which lines apply in which situations and I telling
you to stop being so dishonest.
It's clear from the fact that you think what you've written here is
relevant, that you don't know /why/ Linz says "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts" about the first and "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt" about the
second, but your inability to understand is no excuse for replacing them
with your junk versions.
måndag 27 september 2021 kl. 21:35:05 UTC+2 skrev olcott:
This is the key basis of my refutation of the halting theorem:
The halting theorem counter-examples present infinitely nested
simulation (non-halting) behavior to every simulating halt decider.
I presented this to Ben more than four years ago and he successfully
changed the subject with various dishonest dodges so that it could not
be properly evaluated until now.
Infinitely Recursive input on HP Proofs
peteolcott Mar 11, 2017, 3:13:03 PM
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/NcFS02hKs1U
I had to stop tolerating dishonest dodges that changed the subject
rather than directly addressed the point at hand. A dishonest dodge most
often is an example of the strawman error.
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an
informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument,
whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted,
but instead replaced with a false one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
All of the "rebuttals" to the {key basis of my refutation} have taken
the form of the strawman error, here is the most common one:
The halting theorem does not specify a simulating halt decider.
This is no actual rebuttal to the original claim at all.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
it is not a refutation because if you have a machine that can solve the halting problem then we can construct a machine that the previous machine cannot determine if it holds or not. Ergo it has no solution
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 03:30:09 |
Calls: | 7,812 |
Files: | 12,924 |
Messages: | 5,749,464 |