XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

On 7/6/2022 11:52 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 11:39:31 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

On 7/6/2022 11:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 06 Jul 2022 17:24:07 +0100
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> writes:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 13:50:16 +0100
Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

On 05/07/2022 19:49, wij wrote:

The idea of fork-simulation halting decider indeed looked much
advanced and promising than the oral-based halting decider
(POOH). Chance might be good refuting the HP.

If by "refuting the HP" you mean "constructing a halt
decider", then you have as much chance as refuting that 2+2 == 4
[in all cases, with the usual meanings of those words]. All the
obfuscation of the last couple of decades does absolutely nothing
to indicate any actual error in any of the several known proofs
that no general halt decider can exist. If you, or PO, ever did
manage to produce an actual purported "H", then we already know
how to construct an actual counterexample that refutes your, or
his, claim. That's all anyone really needs to know. We can sit
back and wait however long it takes for an actual claimed "H"
[whether in C or x86 code or as a TM] to appear, and then it is a
matter of moments to produce a program and input that "H" fails
with.

If by "refuting the HP" you mean something else, then you
need to explain further, as "refuting" in English applies to
claims rather than to problems.

My solution bears no relation to Olcott's which has obvious flaws
and unlike Olcott I certainly have not been engaged in any form of
obfuscation "for years": I only thought of my idea a few days ago
and my original post is simple, clear and to the point.

So rather than just hand-waving why don't you point out any actual
errors in my proposed solution, Mr Andy Walker.

I thought you claimed a three-way decider? That's fine. There's
nothing to say about such things other than to ask how good it is.
A really good three-way halt decider would be very useful in
practice, but the usual offerings just refuses to decide a huge
category of problem instances and would be no use in practice.

Try not to be a crank. It's a crank tactic to put the onus on
everyone else to show that some vague idea is wrong because it
suggests you just want people to talk to you. Publish (and in this
case I am including here), and if there's a flaw it will be pointed
out quickly enough.

I have published: my original post in this thread is simple, clear
and to the point: certainly not vague. As far as being a
"three-way" decider: the third outcome is not a decision of
"unknown" it is an exception thrown when an "Impossible Program"
contradiction is detected.

/Flibble

Provide the full source-code for a fully operational working example
of this. Now that I converted H into a pure function of its inputs I
will be able to publish its full source code and the source code of
the x86utm operating system.

No, I have better things to do with my time.

/Flibble

So you expressly acknowledge that your ideas may simply be too vague to properly review. For example you never even mentioned the criterion
measure of your pathological input decider.

I published one of these a long time ago.
It applies to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem

Truth_Bearer(G) ≡ ((PA ⊢ G) ∨ (PA ⊢ ¬G))

*Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel



--
Copyright 2022 Pete 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)