Am 11.11.21 um 17:00 schrieb olcott:
#define ptr uintptr_t
void P(ptr x)
{
H(x, x);
}
int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{
((void(*)(ptr))x)(y);
return 1;
}
int main()
{
H((ptr)P, (ptr)P);
return 0;
}
Besides the fact that there is no good reason to write that type unsafe
code in C++ did you test it? The code will never compile because of the forward reference to H.
And well, H calls P and P calls H. What do you expect?
Marcel
On 11/11/21 2:59 PM, olcott wrote:
I embedded the above in a whole other program so these "errors"
were corrected in code that I did not know about.
In other words, you don't know how to do a controlled experiment so we
really need to deman FULL disclosure of exactly what you are doing
before we can accept any 'experimental' evidence.
You are writing your obituary here.
On 11/11/2021 11:01 AM, Marcel Mueller wrote:
The code will never compile because of the forward reference to H.
And well, H calls P and P calls H. What do you expect?
However many programing languages allow 'mutual recursion" and it's
very useful.
On 11/11/2021 6:47 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> writes:
Besides the fact that there is no good reason to write that type
unsafe code in C++ did you test it? The code will never compile
because of the forward reference to H.
And well, H calls P and P calls H. What do you expect?
He's imagining he can solve the Halting Problem if he uses the x86
instruction set instead of a Turing Machine. Many people have tried to
explain the flaws in his argument; he doesn't listen. There is nothing
to do but killfile him.
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one
else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer
People that cannot see the target are unqualified to judge hits from
misses.
In comp.lang.c++ olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 11/11/2021 6:47 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
Marcel Mueller <news.5...@spamgourmet.org> writes:
Besides the fact that there is no good reason to write that type
unsafe code in C++ did you test it? The code will never compile
because of the forward reference to H.
And well, H calls P and P calls H. What do you expect?
He's imagining he can solve the Halting Problem if he uses the x86
instruction set instead of a Turing Machine. Many people have tried to
explain the flaws in his argument; he doesn't listen. There is nothing
to do but killfile him.
Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one
else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer
People that cannot see the target are unqualified to judge hits from misses.You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics? Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can be expressed as a
computer program could be solved just like that. The Riemann hypothesis? Solved. The Collatz conjecture? Solved. All the Millenium Prize Problems? Solved. You becoming a millionaire by merely solving all these problems
would be peanuts compared to the mathematical revolution that this would cause.
Of course mathematicians are not stupid. When they have proven that the halting problem is unsolvable, they know what they are talking about.
No amount of Dunning-Krugerisms is going to change that.
You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
[...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
[..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
Because the halting problem as defined is a category error: only
Olcott sees this and the rest of you are blind to it. Classic outcome
of failing to recognize a category error is an argument that goes
nowhere and never ends.
/Flibble
[...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
the Collatz conjecture?
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
[..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
[...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
the Collatz conjecture?
Tim Woodall <news001@woodall.me.uk> writes:
On 2021-11-13, Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
[..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
[...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
the Collatz conjecture?
#include <halting.h>
auto collatzN = [](int i) {
while (i != 1) {
if (i&1) i = 3 * i + 1;
else i /= 2;
}
auto collatz = []() {
int n = 1;
while(1) {
if (!HALTS(collatzN(n)))
return n;
++n;
}
}
int main() {
if (HALTS(collatz())) {
std::cout << "conjecture is false." << std::endl;
std::cout << "finding smallest counterexample" << std::endl;
std::cout << collatz() << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "conjecture is true." << std::endl;
}
}
Obviously there are much more efficient ways of finding the
smallest counterexample if you have HALTS but I think this
answers your question.
Nice formulation. The idea of nested calls to HALTS did not
occur to me. Also the idea of being able to call HALTS on
a particular function, rather than the program as a whole,
is a useful one, and not one I remember seeing before (at
least not so clearly).
A hearty round of applause and thank yous.
On 2021-11-13, Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
[..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
someone solved it, it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
[...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
the Collatz conjecture?
#include <halting.h>
auto collatzN = [](int i) {
while (i != 1) {
if (i&1) i = 3 * i + 1;
else i /= 2;
}
auto collatz = []() {
int n = 1;
while(1) {
if (!HALTS(collatzN(n)))
return n;
++n;
}
}
int main() {
if (HALTS(collatz())) {
std::cout << "conjecture is false." << std::endl;
std::cout << "finding smallest counterexample" << std::endl;
std::cout << collatz() << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "conjecture is true." << std::endl;
}
}
Obviously there are much more efficient ways of finding the
smallest counterexample if you have HALTS but I think this
answers your question.
On 11/13/21 3:48 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
Nice formulation. The idea of nested calls to HALTS did not
occur to me. Also the idea of being able to call HALTS on
a particular function, rather than the program as a whole,
is a useful one, and not one I remember seeing before (at
least not so clearly).
A hearty round of applause and thank yous.
The key is you call Halts on what could be A program (and each
function, when combined with HALTS is able to be a 'program')
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
[..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
someone solved it,
it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
[...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
the Collatz conjecture?
On 11/13/2021 12:24 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> writes:
[..wanting to solve the halting problem..]
Because I didn't see these last three words my reply was incorrect.You do understand that if the halting problem were solvable, and
someone solved it,
I am not trying to solve the halting problem merely show how this
simplest possible equivalent to the halting theorem counter-examples can have its halt status correctly decided by H.
int H(ptr x, ptr y)
{
x(y); // direct execution of P(P)
return 1;
}
// Minimal essence of Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
void P(ptr x)
{
H(x, x);
}
int main(void)
{
H(P, P);
}
H simulates its input and as soon as its input calls H with the same parameters that H was called with H aborts this simulation and returns 0
for not halting, infinite recursion detected. It took me 16,000 hours
since 2004 to get it this simple.
it would be the Holy Grail of mathematics?
Pretty much every single unsolved mathematical hypothesis that can
be expressed as a computer program could be solved just like that.
[...] The Collatz conjecture? Solved. [...]
Can you explain what program would serve to provide a solution to
the Collatz conjecture?
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, you are also a liar
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, you are also a liarWhich is why most of us don't read anything he posts in comp.lang.c++
and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Post in comp.theory if you want to engage with him.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.T...@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 18:31:39 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, youWhich is why most of us don't read anything he posts in
are also a liar
comp.lang.c++ and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Is it? As I knew, not so.
I used to see Mr Flibble in comp.c++. He posted "Halting problem as
defined is erroneous" in comp.theory, which made me worry about C++
people.
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:09:29 -0800 (PST)
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 18:31:39 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, youWhich is why most of us don't read anything he posts in
are also a liar
comp.lang.c++ and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Is it? As I knew, not so.The halting problem as defined is erroneous: it is effectively a
I used to see Mr Flibble in comp.c++. He posted "Halting problem as
defined is erroneous" in comp.theory, which made me worry about C++
people.
category error.
/Flibble
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 18:31:39 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Which is why most of us don't read anything he posts in comp.lang.c++Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, you are also a liar
and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Is it? As I knew, not so.
I used to see Mr Flibble in comp.c++. He posted "Halting problem as defined is
erroneous" in comp.theory, which made me worry about C++ people.
Post in comp.theory if you want to engage with him.
Anyone is of the same right posting message on any google forum one think appropriate, is that correct? Has olcott the right? I think so. Do you?
That said, I don't really enjoy engaging with olcott, he is sometimes very cunny.
On Sun, 14 Nov 2021 06:09:29 -0800 (PST)
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 18:31:39 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Which is why most of us don't read anything he posts inBasic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, you
are also a liar
comp.lang.c++ and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Is it? As I knew, not so.
I used to see Mr Flibble in comp.c++. He posted "Halting problem as
defined is erroneous" in comp.theory, which made me worry about C++
people.
The halting problem as defined is erroneous: it is effectively a
category error.
/Flibble
... There is a famous essay "beware
the trisectors" that can be found on the net, which covers the
difficulties in dealing with those like Olcott.
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 18:31:39 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Which is why most of us don't read anything he posts in comp.lang.c++Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, you are also a liar
and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Is it? As I knew, not so.
I used to see Mr Flibble in comp.c++. He posted "Halting problem as defined is
erroneous" in comp.theory, which made me worry about C++ people.
Post in comp.theory if you want to engage with him.
Anyone is of the same right posting message on any google forum one think appropriate, is that correct? Has olcott the right? I think so. Do you?
That said, I don't really enjoy engaging with olcott, he is sometimes very cunny.
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 18:31:39 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Which is why most of us don't read anything he posts in comp.lang.c++Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, you are also a liar
and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Is it? As I knew, not so.
I used to see Mr Flibble in comp.c++. He posted "Halting problem as defined is
erroneous" in comp.theory, which made me worry about C++ people.
I was referring to olcott, not Mr Flibble.
Post in comp.theory if you want to engage with him.
Anyone is of the same right posting message on any google forum one think
appropriate, is that correct? Has olcott the right? I think so. Do you?
That said, I don't really enjoy engaging with olcott, he is sometimes very cunny.
This is a Usenet newsgroup, not a Google forum. Google has created a
clumsy interface to Usenet, making newsgroups appear as Google forums.
That being said, yes, anyone can post to unmoderated newsgroups. I am *asking* you to refrain from arguing with olcott here in comp.lang.c++.
On 14/11/2021 15:09, wij wrote:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 18:31:39 UTC+8, Keith Thompson wrote:
wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sunday, 14 November 2021 at 06:29:57 UTC+8, olcott wrote:[...]
Which is why most of us don't read anything he posts in comp.lang.c++Basic truth: No one can duplicate your 'experiment'.
Although you showed some C/C++/x86/TM codes, no one is real, you are also a liar
and are not interested in seeing replies here.
Is it? As I knew, not so.
I used to see Mr Flibble in comp.c++. He posted "Halting problem as defined is
erroneous" in comp.theory, which made me worry about C++ people.
Mr. Flibble does not speak for "C++ people". In fact, Mr. Flibble often
does not speak for himself, but posts things just to provoke a reaction.
I don't really know what he means by his comments on the halting
problem, but they are certainly not C++ related - I'm sure if he
actually wants to discuss it, then comp.theory is a better place.
Post in comp.theory if you want to engage with him.
Anyone is of the same right posting message on any google forum one think appropriate, is that correct? Has olcott the right? I think so. Do you? That said, I don't really enjoy engaging with olcott, he is sometimes very cunny.
Usenet is a bastion of free speech - there is no sensor of who posts
here, or what they post. Yes, Olcott has the right to post anything
here. Equally, people who would prefer that a C++ newsgroup is for C++
topics have the right to ask others to refrain from off-topic posting or encouraging impolite and disruptive posters.
Olcott is delusional. He is not the first, nor the last, to believe
that he has found a proof or counter-proof that contradicts a long established mathematical theorem. Like all such people, rational
arguments bounce off him with no effect, except perhaps to strengthen
his resolve. Replying to and encouraging him does not help anyone - not
him, nor anyone else interested in computational theory, nor other
people frequenting these newsgroups. There is a famous essay "beware
the trisectors" that can be found on the net, which covers the
difficulties in dealing with those like Olcott.
Despite using a limited subset of C and C++ as his programming language (rather than more traditional choices such as Turing machines), Olcott's posts are not remote topical here - just as they are not topical in a newsgroup for English Literature despite being written in English.
Olcott is never going to listen to anyone else's advice or suggestions, including the suggestion to take his ramblings elsewhere. But perhaps
you might.
No one likes to see what is not wanted to see. But, 'suppressing' other speeches should not be what the 'free speech' we recognized.
An example of your case: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming
That communication function of that site is sabotaged by "garbage posts" is definitely not the essence of free speech.
There are also many similar cases, particularly involving political issues.
On 15/11/2021 09:43, wij wrote:
No one likes to see what is not wanted to see. But, 'suppressing' other speeches should not be what the 'free speech' we recognized.
An example of your case: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming
That communication function of that site is sabotaged by "garbage posts" is definitely not the essence of free speech.
There are also many similar cases, particularly involving political issues.
comp.programming is a Usenet group, not a "site" or a "google group".
And yes, it has been destroyed by vandals - people who irritate others
and hinder other people from using a place for its intended function.
That is a misuse of free speech - just as talking loudly in a cinema or theatre is a misuse. It is extremely difficult to create and enforce a
set of rules that do not hinder or censor free speech, while at the same
time stopping misuse and abuse.
The best that can be done in an open group like this is to ask people politely to respect other people. Sometimes it works - I've seen
posters mature from annoying and egotistic to understanding that working /with/ people in a group, rather than against them, is better for
everyone. Often, it does not work. Some people (such as at least one
person in comp.programming) prefer to destroy communities and vandalise common areas - that is something that most people find difficult to understand, but it happens. Others (including a long-term poster to comp.programming and other groups, including occasionally this one) have serious psychological issues and I think are unable to understand things
from other peoples' viewpoints. I suspect Olcott falls into this
category - his plan to annoy people such as Keith until they review his "code" shows a serious inability to understand other people.
Now, despite the rule that "discussions about topicality are always on topic", is it possible to agree on the following points?
1. Olcott's posts contribute nothing of use or interest to groups such
as comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, and are not topical there.
2. No replies to Olcott's posts in these groups help him in any way -
most replies are complaints about the posts, and those that address the technical aspects are invariably dismissed by Olcott himself.
3. While ignoring Olcott will not stop him entirely, replying to him encourages most posts. Unfortunately, that also applies to replies in
the topical group comp.theory, since he often cross-posts back to
off-topic groups.
4. No one can stop Olcott or any others from posting what they want.
All that can be done is ask people to stop, and appeal to basic human decency.
5. Further discussion here will not help. Either you get the point, or
you don't.
And yes, it has been destroyed by vandals - people who irritate others
and hinder other people from using a place for its intended function.
That is a misuse of free speech - just as talking loudly in a cinema or theatre is a misuse. It is extremely difficult to create and enforce a
set of rules that do not hinder or censor free speech, while at the same
time stopping misuse and abuse.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 112 |
Nodes: | 8 (1 / 7) |
Uptime: | 26:05:35 |
Calls: | 2,468 |
Files: | 8,627 |
Messages: | 1,892,288 |