| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Mar 15 09:09AM -0500 On 3/15/2021 8:38 AM, Andy Walker wrote: > restrict themselves to one posting per day. That would give us about > a dozen articles per day as light relief, rather than getting on for > 100 [which means I have to zap lots of them unread]. Any bloody idiot can continue to parrot: You are wrong, you are wrong, I know that you are wrong because I really really believe that you are wrong. I dare you or anyone else to find a single significant error (that changes the outcome) in any of this: http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinite_recursion.pdf -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Mar 15 09:44AM -0500 On 3/15/2021 9:22 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinite_recursion.pdf > That's your paper that "proves" 2 + 2 = 5, is it? Why should I waste my > time on that? I know full well that 2 + 2 = 4. I show that there is a gap in the reasoning of these proofs that make their "do the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides" decidable. They are decidable on the basis they they specify infinite recursion to every (at least partial) halt decider that bases its decision on examining the execution trace of its own simulation of these inputs. void H_Hat(u32 P) { u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts(P, P); // When Halts() simulates H_Hat() then H_Hat() specifies // infinite recursion when it is executed with itself as input. if (Input_Would_Halt) HERE: goto HERE; } int main() { u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat); Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt); } http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinite_recursion.pdf -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Mar 15 10:11AM -0500 On 3/15/2021 9:55 AM, David Brown wrote: > conditional branches.) > Secondly, your algorithm does not detect all infinite recursion. > Conditional branches are no guarantee that the recursion is not infinite. Now we construct a new Turing machine D with H as a subroutine. This new TM calls H to determine what M does when the input to M is its own description <M>. Once D has determined this information, it does the opposite. That is, it rejects if M accepts and accepts if M does not accept. (Sipser 1997:165) Sipser, Michael 1997. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. Boston: PWS Publishing Company (165-167) All that I have done is conclusively prove that the "do the opposite of whatever halt decider decides" basis of the conventional halting problem proofs does not actually prove halting problem undecidability. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 15 05:59PM +0100 Can you please stop talking to yourself here ? Post to comp.theory only ! The only NG where your stuff fits. |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Mar 15 03:20PM -0500 On 3/15/2021 2:51 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> How is it some people have an apparent infinite capacity to listen to a >> stream of nonsense without choking on vomit? > Humm.... Good point! Damn. Perhaps they think there is hope? ;^o If you simply assume that I am wrong you will not see that I am correct. I updated these two pages of the textbook proofs: http://www.liarparadox.org/sipser_165.pdf http://www.liarparadox.org/kozen_233.pdf to YELLOW HIGHLIGHT the portions that show the key basis of both of these proofs is defining an input to the halt decider that: "does the opposite of whatever the halt decider decides" The following does correctly encode this same key basis and no one can point out why it does not: void H_Hat(u32 P) { u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts(P, P); if (Input_Would_Halt) HERE: goto HERE; } int main() { u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat); Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt); } Then I provide the complete execution trace of the x86 machine language of the above code: http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinite_recursion.pdf Showing exactly <how> this halting status of the above code is correctly decided as infinitely recursive. No one can point to any error. Any bloody idiot can play the role of a mindless naysayer, even a bot can do this. No one can point to any error in any of the above BECAUSE THERE IS NO ERROR! -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Mar 15 09:12AM +0100 STOP POSTING HERE OFF-TOPIC-STUFF, IDIOT ! |
| Brian Wood <woodbrian77@gmail.com>: Mar 14 06:33PM -0700 On Monday, February 15, 2021 at 2:02:34 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote: > give away and what they don't, and if you spend your time creating a > worthwhile product or service, then it's natural to get paid for the > effort.) It's both free and commercial -- like Duckduckgo.com. > However, there /is/ something wrong with asking others to work for you > for free so that you stand a better chance of earning money with the > software. I'm not asking anyone to work for free. I'm asking for ideas on how to improve my SaaS. People are free to decide to reply or not. Over the years a lot of people have provided helpful replies. |
| 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. |
No comments:
Post a Comment