Thursday, October 29, 2020

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm>: Oct 29 02:00PM +0100

For gods sacke stop cross posting on 4 newsgroups.
 
Especially comp.lang.prolog doesn't make much sense.
 
RAM/RASP is probably best housed on comp.theory.
 
olcott schrieb:
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu>: Oct 29 08:48AM -0600


> For gods sacke stop cross posting on 4 newsgroups.
 
> Especially comp.lang.prolog doesn't make much sense.
 
> RAM/RASP is probably best housed on comp.theory.
 
Many people have asked this, and have made no impact on him. The best
you can do is not interact with him on newsgroups where his crackpottery
is off-topic (sadly, to the best of my knoweldge there is no
alt.crackpot newsgroup, as that is the only one where he would really be
on-topic).
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>: Oct 29 03:17PM

On 29/10/2020 14:48, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> is off-topic (sadly, to the best of my knoweldge there is no
> alt.crackpot newsgroup, as that is the only one where he would really be
> on-topic).
 
There IS an alt.crackpot newsgroup! :) Of course PO will not post there.
 
Anyway, the obvious solution to all this is that if someone doesn't want
to be bothered by PO crackpottery in a particular newsgroup, they should
just filter PO's posts from those groups. I find that "ignore
subthread" works best, as it also ignores any replies to PO.
 
Mike.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 10:29AM -0500

On 10/29/2020 9:41 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> /no/ recursion, actual or implicit, finite or infinite, involved.
> If you would, as I have suggested, distinguish executables from
> sources, you would not make this /repeated/ mistake.
 
If we simulate the debug trace based on source code or have a
description language that is executable machine code there is infinite
recursion in either case, yet former case is much more clumsy.
 
The description language of the x86utm system is x86 machine language
that is disassembled into human readable form on the fly only for the
benefit of humans.
 
It turns out to be the case that analyzing the control flow of a program
is much easier in machine language because all of the control flow is
already in the form of a directed graph with integer labeled nodes.
 
>     You will also perhaps note that Linz gives a quite different
> proof on that /same page/.
 
x86 language ≡ von Neumann architecture ≡ UTM ≡ RASP Machine
 
The RASP is a random-access machine (RAM) model that, unlike the RAM,
has its program in its "registers" together with its input. The
registers are unbounded (infinite in capacity); whether the number of
registers is finite is model-specific. Thus the RASP is to the RAM as
the Universal Turing machine is to the Turing machine. The RASP is an
example of the von Neumann architecture whereas the RAM is an example of
the Harvard architecture.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine
 
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 11:05AM -0500

On 10/29/2020 8:30 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> of the Linz proof is H applied to (H_Hat, H_Hat). Your 'solution'
> doesn't resolve the contradiction. Your H gets your H_Hat case wrong.
 
> André
 
The one case that you point to when I claim that:
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P, u32 I);
never decides any of its inputs incorrectly
 
is not a case of
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P, u32 I);
deciding its inputs. This is why I called this case a dishonest dodge.
 
It is like I say that cats do not bark and you respond with of course
cats bark because dogs bark all the time.
 
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 11:13AM -0500

On 10/29/2020 10:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> just filter PO's posts from those groups.  I find that "ignore
> subthread" works best, as it also ignores any replies to PO.
 
> Mike.
 
Sure these kind of ad homimen attacks are the first resort of clueless
wonders and the last resort of people like yourself that diligently try
to find a legitimate rebuttal.
 
Failing at that these people resort to ad hominem attacks because their
only interest was in forming one kind of rebuttal or another and they
never had any interest in forming mutual understanding.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
"André G. Isaak" <agisaak@gm.invalid>: Oct 29 10:55AM -0600

On 2020-10-29 10:05, olcott wrote:
 
> The one case that you point to when I claim that:
> bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P, u32 I);
> never decides any of its inputs incorrectly
 
You refuse to give clear answers. I've asked you numerous times
 
If you apply your H to (H_hat, H_hat),
 
(1) What does the ABNHBD function called from with H return?
(2) What does the ABNHBD function called from within the outermost H_hat
return?
 
The only clear and direct answers to either of the above questions is
either ABORTED or TERMINATED NORMALLY (or Not Aborted or whatever you
call it).
 
You've refused to answer both of these questions directly when asked.
You have on occasion given a very indirect, wishy-washy response which
hints at the answer to one or the other, but never both at the same time.
 
If you want to claim that your ABNHBD never decides any of its inputs
incorrectly, then can you please provide a DIRECT answer to the above to
two questions. Then I can explain why your claim is wrong.
 
> is not a case of
> bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P, u32 I);
> deciding its inputs. This is why I called this case a dishonest dodge.
 
How exacly would either of the above not be a cases of ABNHBD deciding
its inputs? Both your H and your H_hat contain a copy of ABNHBD. Both
take an input. Both need to decide that input.
 
André
 
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 12:52PM -0500

On 10/29/2020 11:55 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> its inputs? Both your H and your H_hat contain a copy of ABNHBD. Both
> take an input. Both need to decide that input.
 
> André
 
I know that you are not too stupid to understand this:
This function always provides the correct return value for its input
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P u32 I)
 
I know that you are not too stupid to understand this:
This function always provides the correct return value for its input
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P u32 I)
 
I know that you are not too stupid to understand this:
This function always provides the correct return value for its input
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P u32 I)
 
I know that you are not too stupid to understand this:
This function always provides the correct return value for its input
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P u32 I)
 
I know that you are not too stupid to understand this:
This function always provides the correct return value for its input
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P u32 I)
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Oct 29 06:20PM

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:13:13 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Failing at that these people resort to ad hominem attacks because their
> only interest was in forming one kind of rebuttal or another and they
> never had any interest in forming mutual understanding.
 
People resort to mostly polite requests for you to stop your
unacceptable posting activities because (i) your posts are irrelevant
to the comp.lang groups, and (ii) people in general have no interest in
the halting problem. To that extent you are probably right that people
have no interest in forming a mutual understanding with you, but why
should they? To keep provoking people until they share your off-topic
obsessions seems counter productive. They don't.
 
The truth is that your weird posting practices and unwillingness to
behave reasonably towards others shows that are mentally disturbed, with
an obsessive and probably (given your total disregard of everyone else)
narcissistic disorder. Why you want to display yourself in this way is
anyone's guess: probably you just cannot stop yourself.
 
However there is hope. You said in an earlier posting that you would
stop your posting if people agree with you. On that basis I am happy
to say I agree with you. How many other people have to say to same to
get you to stop? I would be happy to try and put together the
necessary collection. Would, say, 4 people who say they agree with you
be enough?
Manfred <noname@add.invalid>: Oct 29 07:20PM +0100

On 10/29/2020 4:17 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> just filter PO's posts from those groups.  I find that "ignore
> subthread" works best, as it also ignores any replies to PO.
 
> Mike.
 
The problem is that some repliers use poor newsreaders that break thread
ID consistency, and their replies manage to get through the "ignore
subthread" killfile directive.
So, the advise still holds that those repliers should better remove the
language groups from their replies, unless they aim at landing into the
killfile themselves.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 01:25PM -0500

On 10/29/2020 12:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P u32 I)
 
> And yet you refuse to actually answer the two above questions...
 
> André
 
If every single time this function decides its input correctly
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P u32 I)
then
 
(a) Called from H() it decides its input correctly.
(b) Called from H_Hat() it decides its input correctly.
(c) Called from Late_To_Dinner() it decides it input correctly.
 
I am sure that you understood this and are merely trying to get away
with playing head games.
 
Introducing Homey D. Clown: Homie Don't Play Dat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QhuBIkPXn0
 
 
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr>: Oct 29 06:29PM

> is off-topic (sadly, to the best of my knoweldge there is no
> alt.crackpot newsgroup, as that is the only one where he would really be
> on-topic).
 
Is this the same PO?
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/0i86aQ3WPaA
https://www.bailbondshq.com/nebraska/sarpy-inmate-OLCOTTJr/20150325001
Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm>: Oct 29 02:01PM +0100

For gods sacke stop cross posting on 4 newsgroups.
 
Especially comp.lang.prolog doesn't make much sense.
 
RAM/RASP is probably best housed on comp.theory.
 
olcott schrieb:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 10:49AM -0500

On 10/29/2020 8:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 
> Yes, you 'Halt Decider' needs a 'Non-Halting Behavior Detector', which
> is the core issue that has been problem that has been proven to not be
> possible to build for the universal case.
 
Yet if you are paying attention to what I am saying you will see that
the conventional halting problem trick cannot possibly be applied to do
the opposite of what ever the halt decider decides because in my
definition of a halt decider the first thing that the halt decider does
to indicate its decision is to terminate the execution of the input program.
 
This have been reviewed for more tan one week on there have been no
correct rebuttals.
 
> Yes, you can detect a number of cases of detectable non-halting
> behavior, but some Machine/Input combinations are not decidable as to if
> they will halt or not.
 
You cannot use examples of undecided problems and called them
undecidable. These example remain undecided and thus not undecidable.
 
You can imagine a program that never repeats the same state and never
halts. As soon as you prove that such an example exists you have made it
decidable.
 
> recursion of definition, so until you can provide a non-recursive
> definition of this non-halting behavior detection, you don't have a
> detector.
 
Not at all and not in the least, Infinite recursion is one function
calling itself directly or through a sequence of other function calls
and there is no recursion termination condition in the execution trace
in-between.
 
 
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
if (Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(P, P))
MOV_EAX_1 // Execution of P(P) has been aborted
else
{
MOV_EAX_0 // P(P) has halted
HERE: goto HERE;
}
HALT
}
 
 
void H(u32 P, u32 I)
{
if (Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(P, I))
MOV_EAX_1 // Execution of P(I) has been aborted
else
MOV_EAX_0 // P(I) has halted
HALT
}
 
 
int main()
{
u32 P = (u32)H_Hat;
H(P, P);
HALT
}
 
When-so-ever any code executed by this function would not otherwise halt
unless this function stops executing it, the code has been decided to
have NON_TERMINATING_BEHAVIOR.
u32 Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P, u32 I);
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 10:59AM -0500

On 10/29/2020 8:28 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> it or by doing a code analysis). Then it goes into state HALTING or NON_
> HALTING.
 
> We agree that the normal halt decider doesn't refute Linz.
 
We agree that the standard definition of a halt decider used in all of
the conventional self-referential halting problem proofs is a halt
decider that has some undecidable inputs.
 
In other words all of the conventional self-referential halting problem
proofs did indeed find one way to define a halt decider simply does not
work.
 
The huge mistake of all of these proofs is their presumption that the
one way that they defined a halt decider is the only possible way to
define a halt decider.
 
The system that I used to find this other way is called categorically
exhaustive reasoning.
 
> decider and your NON_TEMINATING_BEHAVIOR_DETECTED /
> SUBORDINATE_HAS_TERMINATED system.
 
> What's the crucial distinction which means that your system rebuts Linz?
 
The first decision step of my halt decider is to stop executing its
input. This makes it impossible for the input to do anything at all.
 
If it is impossible for the input to do anything at all then it is
impossible for the input to do the opposite of whatever the halt decider
decides.
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 12:41PM -0500

On 10/29/2020 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> correct rebuttals.
 
> You OBVIOUSLY are reading a different feed then I am, as almost
> universally people people are finding flaws in your work,
 
Every "flaw" has been proved to be incorrect and then this proof is
simply ignored.
 
 
> I can use a very decided problem and give them to your machine and it
> will not be able to correctly decide on them, at least from every thing
> you have said.
 
So you have a problem that has been provably decided and also provably
undecidable by a machine. At most this would simply show that software
technology has not caught up to the capability of the human mind.
 
> My H_Hat2 that always halts after using H(H_Hat2, H_Hat2) will be
> decided as 'aborted' when it clearly doesn't
 
Please give me the cite on this in a form like this:
On 10/29/2020 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 
>> decidable.
 
> Yes, you can make the proof that it will never halt, but your machine
> will not be able to get the answer.
 
If there is any proof that it will never halt then the machine can use
this same proof making it decidable for this machine.
 
> A halt decider machine that can only tell you if the machine will halt
> or not if you already know the answer is WORTHLESS. If that is really
> your basis, then you are in the wrong field.
 
That is NOT my basis.
I have already provided my complete basis at least 20 times now:
 
A non-halting decider can be defined that always Accepts NON_HALTING
input and Rejects HALTING input as follows:
 
The NON_HALTING decider UTM executes its subordinate TM/UTM one state
transition at a time until it detects non-halting behavior or its
subordinate TM/UTM has terminated normally.
 
If the halt decider UTM detects non-halting behavior of its subordinate
TM/UTM it simply stops executing the subordinate and transitions to its
own final state of NON_TERMINATING_BEHAVIOR_DETECTED.
 
If the subordinate TM/UTM terminates normally the halt decider UTM
transitions to its own final state of SUBORDINATE_HAS_TERMINATED.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 12:48PM -0500

On 10/29/2020 11:50 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> return 0;
> }
> WIll not refute Linz, whever we put in some_logic_which_is_a_pure_function.
 
 
How many times do I have to say that my halt decider correctly decides
the Linz H_Hat() ??? This is my 2018-12-13 @ 7:00 PM solution.
 
x86 language ≡ von Neumann architecture ≡ UTM ≡ RASP Machine
 
The RASP is a random-access machine (RAM) model that, unlike the RAM,
has its program in its "registers" together with its input. The
registers are unbounded (infinite in capacity); whether the number of
registers is finite is model-specific. Thus the RASP is to the RAM as
the Universal Turing machine is to the Turing machine. The RASP is an
example of the von Neumann architecture whereas the RAM is an example of
the Harvard architecture.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine
 
 
> I've suggested this and posted both compilable C code and pseudo-code.
> However what has been missing from you is confirmation that this is indeed
> the distinction you are making.
 
The purpose of the compilable C code is to provide the high level
abstraction of the underlying x86 machine language. The actual halt
decider is x86 machine language and it makes its halting decision on the
basis of x86 machine language.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Cholo Lennon <chololennon@hotmail.com>: Oct 29 12:53PM -0300

On 28/10/20 16:10, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Advocating for either style is stupid. Programmers should be able to
> read both styles as both are easy to read. But programmers are often
> compulsive and irrational.
 
IMHO irrational is a language that have more or less 10 different ways
to initialize a variable... programmers' irrationality comes from the
language.
 
--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Oct 29 06:39PM +0100

> IMHO irrational is a language that have more or less 10 different ways
> to initialize a variable... programmers' irrationality comes from the
> language.
 
The language isn't irrational. The choice for one of the variants isn't
also irrational. Irrational is to advocate to one variant if it is the
the only on logical.
"daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 29 06:21AM -0700

On Thursday, October 29, 2020 at 1:00:59 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
 
> I just solved the halting problem thus changing a basic foundation of
> computer science.
 
I'm skeptical. Given that olcott appears unable to solve the problem of
making the cross posts halt when given input, it seems unlikely that
he could solve other halting problems.
 
Daniel
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 29 03:01PM +0100

On 29/10/2020 13:04, olcott wrote:
> it can be readily accepted as true or so obviously incorrect that it can
> be easily refuted. All it takes is one of these and I will stop
> cross-posting.
 
No one here (or in comp.lang.c, or comp.lang.prolog) actually /cares/
what your claims are. There are some who know what the "halting
problem" is, and can probably sketch out a rough proof without too much
trouble. (No, I am not going to do that - google it, or take some
classes on computability theory.)
 
People don't want you to stop cross-posting because they disagree with
your claim - they want you to stop because you are an annoying noise
generator producing vast amounts of irrelevant, off-topic nonsense that
is swamping these groups. You are not encouraging debate, comments or
criticism - you are /killing/ it.
 
I've given you constructive, helpful advice on how to get better results
and more useful discussions on your ideas, while simultaneously making
life better for all the members of these language groups. If you
continue posting as you have been, that is a clear demonstration that
you are not interested in criticism or help with your ideas, you are not
interested in spreading them - you are merely a vandal, a selfish troll
with no motivation other than spoiling things for other people.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 11:41AM -0500

> making the cross posts halt when given input, it seems unlikely that
> he could solve other halting problems.
 
> Daniel
 
Find a single undecidable input and I will stop cross-posting:
bool Aborted_Because_Non_Halting_Behavior_Detected(u32 P, u32I)
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 11:55AM -0500

On 10/29/2020 2:37 AM, David Brown wrote:
> - but not your Usenet threads where every thought in your head dribbles
> out in a random order. If you have come up with a proof that is so
> significant to the entire field, deal with it /properly/.
Because I have no experience writing academic journal quality papers and
most poorly written papers tend to be rejected out-of-hand without
review I must go through several levels of review.
 
If I don't do this I simply blow my credibility with the academicians so
that no one ever bothers to pay enough attention to see that I was right
all along.
 
 
>> As soon as this work is confirmed or refuted I will quit cross-posting.
 
> You are making some extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require
> extraordinary evidence. You can't present such evidence in this medium.
 
For all people that know the material very well and are paying very
close attention I have already totally proved my point.
 
The key thing that is very easy to understand even in this medium is
that I totally circumvented the conventional halting problem trick basis
of proofs of udecidability.
 
The input to the halt decider cannot possibly do the opposite of
whatever the halt decider decides because the very first step of the
halting decision is to terminate the execution of its input.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm>: Oct 29 02:01PM +0100

For gods sacke stop cross posting on 4 newsgroups.
 
Especially comp.lang.prolog doesn't make much sense.
 
RAM/RASP is probably best housed on comp.theory.
 
olcott schrieb:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Oct 29 08:04AM -0500

On 10/29/2020 7:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 
> The amount of time you wasted on this isn't the issue. It is that fact
> that you still get the answer wrong. HOW the halt decider works isn't
> really interesting, it is the answer it gives.
 
This has never been shown.
 
> even a close alternative to the original 'Halted'/'Non-halting'
> decision. Thus your revised halting problem says nothing about the
> original problem Linz was dealing with.
 
I defined a single non-halting decider that has no undecidable input.
That halt deciders can be defined that have different behavior is simply
off topic. The point is to try to find undecidable input for the decider
that I defined.
 
> Again, this is like the classical Trisect an angle with compass and
> straight edge, and saying you did it by bisection the angle twice, or
> assuming the angle is known (like 90 degrees).
 
 
Unless you can translate your strange analogy into an undeciadble input
it is useless.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)