• Honest dialogue on the proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ easy as 1,

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Alan Mackenzie on Sat Aug 7 10:29:30 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic

    On 8/7/2021 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Malicious cross posting removed. ]

    In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On 8/7/2021 7:14 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

    [ .... ]

    If you wanted a truly honest debate about your "proof", you would make
    the source code for H available, assuming it actually exists.

    What the source-code does and how it does it can be fully proven
    entirely on the basis of what has been provided.

    That people insist on seeing the source-code only proves that they are
    not paying enough attention.

    No. Maybe these people want to verify the whole truth, not just the bit
    you would like them to see.

    The nested simulated calls never return whether or not they are aborted.
    The infinitely nested simulations never stop unless they are aborted.

    You're clearly not interested in an honest dialogue. You want the
    honesty to be on one side only, and it's not your side.


    (1) In other words you don't know the x86 language well enough to see
    that the call to H at machine address [00000d0d] with (P,P) parameters
    cannot possibly stop running unless H aborts its simulation of P?

    (2) Furthermore you don't know the x86 language well enough to see that
    even if this simulation is aborted that the P of this aborted simulation
    cannot possibly proceed to the final state of [00000d1c] after it has
    been aborted?

    (3) One more thing that you apparently cannot see is that whether or not
    the simulation of P is aborted the simulated P cannot possibly proceed
    to the final state of [00000d1c] thus the determination that the input
    to H(P,P) never halts is correct?

    _P()
    [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
    [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
    [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
    [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push P
    [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
    [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
    [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H that emulates P [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
    [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
    [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
    [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
    [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
    [00000d1c](01) c3 ret
    Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]

    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



    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Alan Mackenzie on Sat Aug 7 11:45:01 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic

    On 8/7/2021 11:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Further malicious cross posting removed. ]

    In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On 8/7/2021 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Malicious cross posting removed. ]

    In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On 8/7/2021 7:14 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

    [ .... ]

    If you wanted a truly honest debate about your "proof", you would make >>>>> the source code for H available, assuming it actually exists.

    What the source-code does and how it does it can be fully proven
    entirely on the basis of what has been provided.

    That people insist on seeing the source-code only proves that they are >>>> not paying enough attention.

    No. Maybe these people want to verify the whole truth, not just the bit >>> you would like them to see.

    The nested simulated calls never return whether or not they are aborted. >>>> The infinitely nested simulations never stop unless they are aborted.

    You're clearly not interested in an honest dialogue. You want the
    honesty to be on one side only, and it's not your side.


    (1) In other words you don't know the x86 language well enough to see
    that the call to H at machine address [00000d0d] with (P,P) parameters
    cannot possibly stop running unless H aborts its simulation of P?

    (2) Furthermore you don't know the x86 language well enough to see that
    even if this simulation is aborted that the P of this aborted simulation
    cannot possibly proceed to the final state of [00000d1c] after it has
    been aborted?

    (3) One more thing that you apparently cannot see is that whether or not
    the simulation of P is aborted the simulated P cannot possibly proceed
    to the final state of [00000d1c] thus the determination that the input
    to H(P,P) never halts is correct?


    _P()
    [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
    [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
    [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
    [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push P
    [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
    [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
    [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H that emulates P [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
    [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
    [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
    [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
    [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
    [00000d1c](01) c3 ret
    Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

    It's nothing to do with my competence with x86. It's to do with your
    smoke and mirrors.

    You're hiding what, if anything, you have, thus preventing an honest dialogue. If you were interested in honesty, you would make it as easy
    as possible to discuss your results, if any. Instead you force anybody
    still interested to wade through reams of x86 code, which is woefully incomplete.

    Me, I'm not really interested. I've verified a proof of the HP theorem
    and that's that. But I'd really like to see some honesty from your side.
    If you were to produce the source code of H, I might even look at it.
    Maybe.

    I'm not actually that convinced you've even got source code for H. It
    might well just be a fantasy. It still doesn't matter much. The theorem
    is proved, so it would just be a matter of exposing your mistakes.


    If you have no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) then they stand without
    rebuttal. You are merely one of many that dismisses my proof out-of-hand without sufficient review simply because you really really believe that
    I must be incorrect.

    If no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) exists this proves that (1)(2)(3)
    are correct which entails that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
    the input to H.

    [ .... ]

    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein



    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Alan Mackenzie on Sat Aug 7 15:19:03 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic

    On 8/7/2021 12:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Yet more malicious cross posting removed. ]

    In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On 8/7/2021 11:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Further malicious cross posting removed. ]

    [ .... ]

    It's nothing to do with my competence with x86. It's to do with your
    smoke and mirrors.

    You're hiding what, if anything, you have, thus preventing an honest
    dialogue. If you were interested in honesty, you would make it as
    easy as possible to discuss your results, if any. Instead you force
    anybody still interested to wade through reams of x86 code, which is
    woefully incomplete.

    Me, I'm not really interested. I've verified a proof of the HP
    theorem and that's that. But I'd really like to see some honesty from
    your side. If you were to produce the source code of H, I might even
    look at it. Maybe.

    I'm not actually that convinced you've even got source code for H. It
    might well just be a fantasy. It still doesn't matter much. The
    theorem is proved, so it would just be a matter of exposing your
    mistakes.


    If you have no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) then they stand without
    rebuttal.

    Garbage. They do not stand until they are proved, something beyond your understanding and capability.


    Irrefutable is another word for correct.

    You are merely one of many that dismisses my proof out-of-hand without
    sufficient review simply because you really really believe that I must
    be incorrect.

    There's no "belief" about it. It's established mathematical proof,
    something you fail to understand. You're asserting that 2 + 2 = 5. Why should I waste time on that?

    If you truly, honestly wanted review, you would post your source code.

    The following code proves beyond all possible doubt that the pure
    simulation of P on its input P by H cannot possibly reach its final
    state of [00000d1c] whether or not H aborts this simulation.
    It seems that you are either in psychological denial or worse: (the
    opposite of an honest dialogue).

    _P()
    [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
    [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
    [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
    [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push P
    [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
    [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
    [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H that emulates P [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
    [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
    [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
    [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
    [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
    [00000d1c](01) c3 ret
    Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

    If no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) exists this proves that (1)(2)(3)
    are correct which entails that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
    the input to H.

    Garbage.


    Perhaps you never heard the term: "irrefutable" before?
    It essentially means the same thing as "correct".

    You have no interest in honest dialogue.

    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein



    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Alan Mackenzie on Sat Aug 7 16:12:58 2021
    XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic

    On 8/7/2021 3:56 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Malicious cross posting removed. ]

    In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On 8/7/2021 12:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Yet more malicious cross posting removed. ]

    In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
    On 8/7/2021 11:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
    [ Further malicious cross posting removed. ]

    [ .... ]

    It's nothing to do with my competence with x86. It's to do with your >>>>> smoke and mirrors.

    You're hiding what, if anything, you have, thus preventing an honest >>>>> dialogue. If you were interested in honesty, you would make it as
    easy as possible to discuss your results, if any. Instead you force >>>>> anybody still interested to wade through reams of x86 code, which is >>>>> woefully incomplete.

    Me, I'm not really interested. I've verified a proof of the HP
    theorem and that's that. But I'd really like to see some honesty from >>>>> your side. If you were to produce the source code of H, I might even >>>>> look at it. Maybe.

    I'm not actually that convinced you've even got source code for H. It >>>>> might well just be a fantasy. It still doesn't matter much. The
    theorem is proved, so it would just be a matter of exposing your
    mistakes.


    If you have no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) then they stand without
    rebuttal.

    Garbage. They do not stand until they are proved, something beyond your >>> understanding and capability.

    No response?

    Irrefutable is another word for correct.

    It is not. They are different words with different meanings. Hint: in English there are few pairs of words indeed with identical meanings.

    You are merely one of many that dismisses my proof out-of-hand without >>>> sufficient review simply because you really really believe that I must >>>> be incorrect.

    There's no "belief" about it. It's established mathematical proof,
    something you fail to understand. You're asserting that 2 + 2 = 5. Why >>> should I waste time on that?

    If you truly, honestly wanted review, you would post your source code.

    No answer? You don't actually have source code for an H, do you?

    The following code proves beyond all possible doubt ....


    _P()
    [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
    [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
    [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
    [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push P
    [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
    [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
    [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H that emulates P [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
    [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
    [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
    [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
    [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
    [00000d1c](01) c3 ret
    Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

    Now come nothing but lies from you. You don't honestly think that dumped object code from ~4 lines of C source can prove _anything_ "beyond all possible doubt", surely? You are just lying.


    I am not the one that keeps deleting the code that proves that I am right.

    If you think that I am wrong then show how a pure simulation of the
    above code can possibly reach its final state of [00000d1c] when we know
    that and can verify that H acts as a pure simulator of P(P).

    .... that the pure simulation of P on its input P by H cannot possibly
    reach its final state of [00000d1c] whether or not H aborts this
    simulation. It seems that you are either in psychological denial or
    worse: (the opposite of an honest dialogue).

    Until we know exactly what H does, and how, we can't have any honest
    dialogue about it.


    We can see that H acts as a pure simulator of the above code from this execution trace of the simulation of P by H:

    Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
    Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

    [ .... ]

    Perhaps you never heard the term: "irrefutable" before? It essentially
    means the same thing as "correct".

    Wrong. It does not.

    You have no interest in honest dialogue.

    You don't. Have you actually written working source code for H?

    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein



    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
    minds." Einstein

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