| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Jul 10 08:54PM -0500 After very extensive discussions (23 emails) with a leading computer scientist I have a much simpler way to make my point. typedef void (*ptr)(); void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) HERE: goto HERE; return; } int main() { Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P)); } *H and P implement this pathological relationship* For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P will do. No H can exist that handles this case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem All of the conventional proofs of the halting problem (including the diagonalization proof) correctly prove that H cannot possibly return a correct halt status to its caller P. None of these proofs ever notice that when H is a simulating halt decider it cannot possibly correctly return any value to the simulated P because no function that is (essentially) called in infinite recursion ever returns to its caller. This provides the basis for H(P,P) to correctly determine that its correct and complete simulation of its input would never reach the final state of this simulated input, thus never halts. *Once this halt deciding principle is accepted* A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior that is actually specified by these inputs. *Then this method is understood to implement that principle* Every simulating halt decider that correctly simulates its input until it correctly predicts that this simulated input would never reach its final state, correctly rejects this input as non-halting. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jul 11 09:20AM > After very extensive discussions (23 emails) with a leading computer > scientist I have a much simpler way to make my point. At least you seem to be willing to engage in *some* kind of conversation with experts on the matter. I would still say that you could get much better feedback to your work if you did all these posts in a forum dedicated to computer science and mathematics with an active community of expects, rather than here in some random usenet group (especially since usenet is almost dead, and has been for over a decade). |
| Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: Jul 11 09:41AM On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:20:09 -0000 (UTC) >> scientist I have a much simpler way to make my point. >At least you seem to be willing to engage in *some* kind of conversation >with experts on the matter. Its probably a friend of his. >mathematics with an active community of expects, rather than here in >some random usenet group (especially since usenet is almost dead, and >has been for over a decade). Not all that dead right now. |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Jul 11 08:22AM -0500 On 7/11/2022 4:20 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > mathematics with an active community of expects, rather than here in > some random usenet group (especially since usenet is almost dead, and > has been for over a decade). My proof is verified through software engineering and not verified through computer science. The people in the comp.theory forum don't seem to know jack shit about software engineering. Most crucially they don't understand that a function called in infinite recursion never returns to its caller. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Jul 11 08:24AM -0500 >> At least you seem to be willing to engage in *some* kind of conversation >> with experts on the matter. > Its probably a friend of his. No. He is a world class computer scientist that I reached out to at random. He was unable to validate my work because he did not know the x86 language. He found no mistakes with my work. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: Jul 11 04:09PM On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 08:24:38 -0500 >No. He is a world class computer scientist that I reached out to at >random. He was unable to validate my work because he did not know the >x86 language. He found no mistakes with my work. If he didn't validate it then he wouldn't find any mistakes would he. I imagine he had more important things to do than get into a discussion with a crank. Probably some urgent coffee to make or paper to shuffle. |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Jul 11 01:43PM -0500 > If he didn't validate it then he wouldn't find any mistakes would he. I imagine > he had more important things to do than get into a discussion with a crank. > Probably some urgent coffee to make or paper to shuffle. On the basis of his feedback I rewrote the first page so that it can be understood to be correct with only ordinary understanding of the C programming language and software engineering. The first page of this updated paper makes my point much more clearly in that it requires no knowledge of the x86 assembly language. The subsequent pages can be skipped. Simulating halt decider H(P,P) detects that its simulated P is essentially calling it in infinite recursion, H aborts its simulation of this input then rejects it as non-halting. typedef void (*ptr)(); int H(ptr p, ptr i); void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) HERE: goto HERE; return; } int main() { Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P)); } *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>: Jul 11 07:23PM -0400 On 7/11/22 2:43 PM, olcott wrote: > *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering Except that P only calls H in infinite recursion if H doesn't know enough to stop the recursion, at which point it can't answer non-halting. If it DOES answer non-halting, then it never lets the infinite recursion happen in the first place. H can't use logic based on H never aborting if it DOES abort, as that makes the logic invalid and unsound. It is IMPOSSIBLE for H to do both, emulate forever and abort and answer and be a "Pure Function" at the same time. Your assumption that H can do this, or can decide in finite time is flawed and based on incorrect assumptions and definitions. |
| Albert Arkwright <Albert.Arkwright@gmail.com>: Jul 11 10:13PM +0100 On 11/07/2022 11:28, Mark Bluemel wrote: > As you'd remember if you actually read this newsgroup, we discussed this nearly 4 months ago when the article came out. > I doubt we need to cover the ground again. Why don't you tell the same thing to that idiot called Olcott? He keeps posting the same thing every two weeks and there are two guys here who keep responding to him, instead of kill-filing him. Olcott comes here because he is getting a response; Olcott won't go anywhere unless people stop responding to him completely. Just ignore him; |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Jul 11 06:14PM -0500 On 7/11/2022 4:13 PM, Albert Arkwright wrote: > keep responding to him, instead of kill-filing him. > Olcott comes here because he is getting a response; Olcott won't go > anywhere unless people stop responding to him completely. Just ignore him; I won't go anywhere until my work is validated whether or not anyone responds. I just had a very extensive review (23 emails) by a leading computer scientist. Because of this review I was able to simplify my presentation so that everyone here can easily verify that I have correctly refuted the halting theorem on this pure software engineering basis: understanding that the simulated P essentially calls simulating halt decider H in infinite recursion such that the simulated P cannot possibly terminate normally. For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a "pathological" program P, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P will do. *No H can exist that handles this case* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem *Any H that does handle this case refutes the halting theorem* typedef void (*ptr)(); int H(ptr p, ptr i); void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) HERE: goto HERE; return; } int main() { Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P)); } Simulating halt decider H detects that its simulated input is essentially calling H in infinite recursion. H aborts its simulation on this basis and rejects this input as non-halting. *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Jul 11 09:55AM -0500 Only an ordinary understanding of C and software engineering is required. #define ptr uintptr_t int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider H Simulates its input until it correctly predicts that this simulated input would never terminate normally then rejects this input as non-halting. void P(ptr x) { if (H(x, x)) HERE: goto HERE; return; } int main() { Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P)); } When the execution trace of function P() simulated by function H() shows: (1) Function H() is called from P(). (2) With the same parameters to H(). (3) With no instructions in P() that could escape this infinitely recursive simulation: {index jump, conditional branch, return} Then the function call from P() to H() would never terminate normally. In this case H aborts its simulation of P and rejects its input as non-halting. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer |
| Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp>: Jul 11 06:21PM +0100 On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:55:45 -0500 > Then the function call from P() to H() would never terminate normally. > In this case H aborts its simulation of P and rejects its input as > non-halting. Can you not post your crap to this newsgroup (comp.lang.c++) please? And you seem to need reminding YET AGAIN of the following: I have shown with my signaling halting decider there is no need for a call to a simulation-based halting decider, H, from the input program to be recursive; this is compatible with [Strachey 1965] and associated proofs which are not recursive in nature. Your H is invalid as it aborts the simulation to prevent infinite recursion rather than returning an answer to its caller which results in it giving the wrong answer for a non-pathological input that calls H. /Flibble |
| Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>: Jul 11 11:35AM -0700 > On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 09:55:45 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: [34 lines deleted] > Can you not post your crap to this newsgroup (comp.lang.c++) please? If you must reply to one of olcott's off-topic posts, don't quote the entire post. > And you seem to need reminding YET AGAIN of the following: And don't invite him to post again by trying to continue the discussion here. [SNIP] Followups redirected to comp.theory. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com Working, but not speaking, for Philips void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Jul 11 12:20AM -0700 On 7/6/2022 12:32 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > ) { > std::FILE* fout = fopen(fname, "wb"); > [....] Hummm.. I am missing a damn std:: for fopen! damn it! |
| 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