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

On 1/8/2022 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 1/8/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

// Simplified Linz(1990) Ĥ
// and Strachey(1965) P
void P(ptr x)
{
   if (H(x, y))
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

H and P are defined according to the standard HP counter-example
template shown above.

H bases its halt status decision on the behavior of the simulation of
its input.

Then P demonstrates an infinitely repeating pattern that cannot
possibly ever reach its final state.

This conclusively proves that the input to H meets the Linz definition
of non-halting:

computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)

thus the sufficiency condition for H to report that its input
specifies a non-halting computation.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2

Full Proof with Request for Rebuttal
We have gone around the circle of this MANY times, and you keep just rearranging things and not every answering the refutation.

The problem is that you are simply too stupid to ever understand that P specifies a sequence of configurations that never reach its final state
and thus is correctly determined to be a non-halting computation
according to Linz.

Malcolm, Kaz and Flibble are not too stupid to understand this.

Ben, André and Mike are not interested in understanding what I say they
are only interested in finding some basis for rebuttal. If there is at
least one minor point that I have not proven completely they count
everything that I say as incorrect on the basis of this minor point.

--
Copyright 2021 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)