XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 2/23/2023 7:46 PM, Python wrote:

Dishonest liar Peter Olcott wrote:

On 2/23/2023 5:17 PM, Python wrote:

Peter Olcott wrote:

On 2/23/2023 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/23/2023 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:

Whenever H correctly predicts that D correctly simulated by H cannot >>>>>> possibly reach its final state and halt in any finite number of steps >>>>>> then (by logical necessity) H is correct to reject its input as non- >>>>>> halting.

int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

*D simulated by H cannot possibly correctly reach its ret
instruction*

_D()
  [00001d12] 55         push ebp
  [00001d13] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
  [00001d15] 51         push ecx
  [00001d16] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08] // move 1st argument to eax
  [00001d19] 50         push eax         // push D >>>>>>   [00001d1a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08] // move 1st argument to ecx
  [00001d1d] 51         push ecx         // push D >>>>>>   [00001d1e] e83ff8ffff call 00001562    // call H same as H(D,D) >>>>>>   [00001d23] 83c408     add esp,+08
  [00001d26] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
  [00001d29] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
  [00001d2d] 7402       jz 00001d31
  [00001d2f] ebfe       jmp 00001d2f
  [00001d31] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
  [00001d34] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
  [00001d36] 5d         pop ebp
  [00001d37] c3         ret

H simulates machine instructions of D from [00001d12] to
[00001d1e] then
there are only two possible things that H can do:

(a) Continue to simulate D endlessly (until D runs out of stack
space)

(b) Abort its simulation of D at some point.

In both of these cases D simulated by H never reaches its own ret

instruction (final state).

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)

The only way that I can tell that I made my point with lying reviewers >>>> is that the best rebuttal they can possibly derive is a strawman
deception" change of subject.

Hence I have proved that H(D,D)==0 is correct even to liars.

Hum.

Ben Bacarrisse: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the
"correct" answer even though P(P) halts?

Peter Olcott: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.

This is the only rebuttal you deserve, Peter. You are the lying
piece of dirt. You admitted to lie.

Although my reviewers are smart enough to see that no P ever stops
running unless H aborts its simulation of P...

These same reviewers are not honest enough to admit that this proves
that H is correct to reject its input P as non-halting.

Ben Bacarrisse: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is the
"correct" answer even though P(P) halts?

Peter Olcott: Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts.

Dishonesty is on your side Peter.

The fact that no P ever stops running unless H(P,P) aborts its
simulation of its input P conclusively proves that H is correct to
reject its input as non-halting.


--
Copyright 2023 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)