I have had many thousands of reviews by at least a hundred different
people over the last three years and no one could correctly point out
any mistake.
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that I can quote his agreement
that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not reviewed or agreed to anything else):
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed this
criteria has been met by the behavior of D simulated by H: that D would remain stuck in recursive simulation unless H aborts its simulation of D.
void D(void (*x)())
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
}
It is also true that the relationship between H and D is the same pathological relationship of the halting problem proofs.
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
All of the above taken together does show that I have correctly refuted
the conventional halting problem proofs. Every recent rebuttal has
simply disagreed with the easily verified facts. The same facts that two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed to.
*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
On 1/31/23 6:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 8:07:58 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:What? He's published H but it makes no odds whether it's correct or not >>> because he has told us, long ago, that he's not concerned with the
I have had many thousands of reviews by at least a hundred different >>>>> people over the last three years and no one could correctly point out >>>>> any mistake.You have seen no real rebuttal because you have never shown us your
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that I can quote his agreement >>>>> that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not reviewed or >>>>> agreed to anything else):
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves >>>>> that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed this >>>>> criteria has been met by the behavior of D simulated by H: that D would >>>>> remain stuck in recursive simulation unless H aborts its simulation of D. >>>>>
void D(void (*x)())
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
}
It is also true that the relationship between H and D is the same
pathological relationship of the halting problem proofs.
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own
source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what >>>>> H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
All of the above taken together does show that I have correctly refuted >>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs. Every recent rebuttal has
simply disagreed with the easily verified facts. The same facts that two >>>>> people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed to.
*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
proof - the code for your H. Since you keep it hidden we must assume
it contains errors.
halting problem:
Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct" answer >>> even though P(P) halts?
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
He as explicitly stated that he's "redefined" what a non-halting
computation is:
"A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts
unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of the >>> conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and a few >>> more."
I don't think he could have been clearer.
I'm not sure how he has managed to keep people talking about this other
"not quite the halting problem", but he has.
I assume that what you are doing is trying to prove that a universalNo, he's trying to show that something that is not the halting problem
Turing Machine decider exists by showing that one proof that none
exists is not correct.
can be decided. I'm not sure why anyone cares about this other problem. >>> Certainly he has never been able to show any error in any proof. But
then he does not know what a proof is. He thinks that if
A, B, C ⊦ X then A, B, C, ~A ⊬ X
But what I just said does not follow and you
are rebutted.
The problem is even though he has redefined it, he still says it is
the "equivalent" problem and thus he has disproved the proof.
Why is that a problem? He's been clear that whatever H is doing, it is
not deciding halting:
Russell's Paradox was only eliminated by redefining set theory thus redefining the problem. *Below I prove that H(D,D)==0 is correct*
On 1/31/2023 8:18 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:Russell's Paradox was only eliminated by redefining set theory thus redefining the problem. *Below I prove that H(D,D)==0 is correct*
On 1/31/23 6:50 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
"dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, January 31, 2023 at 8:07:58 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:What? He's published H but it makes no odds whether it's correct or
I have had many thousands of reviews by at least a hundred different >>>>>> people over the last three years and no one could correctly point out >>>>>> any mistake.You have seen no real rebuttal because you have never shown us your
MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that I can quote his
agreement
that the following verbatim paragraph is correct (he has not
reviewed or
agreed to anything else):
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H
correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>> unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly >>>>>> report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words
proves
that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
Two people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed this >>>>>> criteria has been met by the behavior of D simulated by H: that D
would
remain stuck in recursive simulation unless H aborts its
simulation of D.
void D(void (*x)())
{
int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D, D));
}
It is also true that the relationship between H and D is the same
pathological relationship of the halting problem proofs.
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own >>>>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of >>>>>> what
H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
All of the above taken together does show that I have correctly
refuted
the conventional halting problem proofs. Every recent rebuttal has >>>>>> simply disagreed with the easily verified facts. The same facts
that two
people with masters degrees in computer science have agreed to.
*Simulating Halt Decider Applied to the Halting Theorem*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364657019_Simulating_Halt_Decider_Applied_to_the_Halting_Theorem
proof - the code for your H. Since you keep it hidden we must assume >>>>> it contains errors.
not
because he has told us, long ago, that he's not concerned with the
halting problem:
Me: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the "correct"
answer
even though P(P) halts?
PO: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.
He as explicitly stated that he's "redefined" what a non-halting
computation is:
"A non-halting computation is every computation that never halts >>>> unless its simulation is aborted. This maps to every element of >>>> the
conventional halting problem set of non-halting computations and >>>> a few
more."
I don't think he could have been clearer.
I'm not sure how he has managed to keep people talking about this other >>>> "not quite the halting problem", but he has.
I assume that what you are doing is trying to prove that a universal >>>>> Turing Machine decider exists by showing that one proof that noneNo, he's trying to show that something that is not the halting problem >>>> can be decided. I'm not sure why anyone cares about this other
exists is not correct.
problem.
Certainly he has never been able to show any error in any proof. But >>>> then he does not know what a proof is. He thinks that if
A, B, C ⊦ X then A, B, C, ~A ⊬ X
But what I just said does not follow and you
are rebutted.
The problem is even though he has redefined it, he still says it is
the "equivalent" problem and thus he has disproved the proof.
Why is that a problem? He's been clear that whatever H is doing, it is
not deciding halting:
I
(a) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
unless aborted then (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly
report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
The above words are a tautology in that the meaning of the words proves
that they are true: (b) is a necessary consequence of (a).
II
The correct simulation of D by H meets the (a) portion above
III
The relationship between H and D is the exact same pathological
relationship of the HP proofs
Therefore the fact that H(D,D)==0 is correct refutes the conventional HP proofs.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 10:24:49 |
Calls: | 7,758 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,897 |
Messages: | 5,744,455 |