Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 8:12 pm Ah so you simply "do not believe in" x86 assembly language.
Strawman.

Assembly is source code.
C is source code.

Show me a complete memory dump of your system. Starting at address 000011a2

Give me all the details so that I can reproduce the experiment on my own hardware (in case you are lying to us).
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by PeteOlcott »

Any sufficiently technically competent person can easily reverse-engineer
the correct x86 emulation of this source-code by H(P,P) without knowing
anything else besides this source-code and that H emulates its input with
an x86 emulator.


That you cannot do this conclusively proves that you are not a sufficiently technically competent person.

Code: Select all

_P()
[00001352](01)  55              push ebp
[00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01)  50              push eax      // push P
[00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
[0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
[00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
[00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
[00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
[0000136c](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 8:25 pm Any sufficiently technically competent person can easily reverse-engineer
the correct x86 emulation of this source-code by H(P,P) without knowing
anything else besides this source-code and that H emulates its input with
an x86 emulator.


That you cannot do this conclusively proves that you are not a sufficiently
technically competent person.

Code: Select all

_P()
[00001352](01)  55              push ebp
[00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01)  50              push eax      // push P
[00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
[0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
[00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
[00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
[00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
[0000136c](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Pete. You are a bullshitter.

You know that you are a bullshitter.
I know that you are a bullshitter.
You know that I know that you are a bullshitter.

The reason I am asking you for the source code of H is so that I can emulate H (with its inputs) in an emulator of my own. The emulator doesn't even have to be x86! I could compile your source code for ARM, MIPS, PPC. It doesn't matter! That's the entire point of having source code! I can compile it myself for whatever hardware platform I want.

And THEN (once the emulation of H emulating P completes).... I will make P do the exact opposite thing.

The reason you refuse to provide the source code for H is precisely because you want to prevent me from emulating H emulating P.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by PeteOlcott »

So in other words you are dishonestly
changing the subject away from H(P,P).

You do this because you know that I am correct
yet have no interest in truth only rebuttal.

Code: Select all

_P()
[00001352](01)  55              push ebp
[00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01)  50              push eax      // push P
[00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
[0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
[00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
[00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
[00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
[0000136c](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:20 pm So in other words you are dishonestly
changing the subject away from H(P,P).
Quit bullshitting, Pete. I am not changing the subject away from H(P, P). I am pointing out that H(P) has a circular dependency on H.

The circular dependency is obvious in C
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
and it's obvious in Assembly
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
Because P depends on H then P is equialent to P(H).
Because P = P(H) then H(P,P) is equivalent to H(P(H), P(H)).

So quit fucking bullshitting and satisfy P's dependencies already! Give me the source code for H!
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:20 pm You do this because you know that I am correct
yet have no interest in truth only rebuttal.
It's precisely because I have an interest in truth is why I am calling out your bullshit.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by PeteOlcott »

If you are too stupid to understand that I proved my point without seeing
the code that proves you are far too stupid to understand the code.

If I showed the code then everyone would have hundreds of of other
totally incorrect reasons that are entirely based on their own ignorance
to dispute my findings and closure would become impossible.

What I have shown boils complete proof that I am correct down to
its bare essence.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:58 pm If you are too stupid to understand that I proved my point without seeing the code that proves you are far too stupid to understand the code.
Pete. You have access to ALL the source code - I don't. Because you refuse to show it to me.

Having all the information you are in a position of advantage.
Having partial information I am in a position of disadvantage.

Even from a position of advantage you are still too stupid to comprehend why you are wrong.
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:58 pm If I showed the code then everyone would have hundreds of of other
totally incorrect reasons that are entirely based on their own ignorance
to dispute my findings and closure would become impossible.
That is precisely because your code is NOT a closure!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(mathematics)
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 7:58 pm What I have shown boils complete proof that I am correct down to
its bare essence.
You are really struggling with this, aren't you?

You are H. You are reporting that you are correct.
I am P. I am reporting that you are incorrect about being correct.

That is the essence of dialectic. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis.

What is confusing you?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by PeteOlcott »

So in other words you are claiming that it is completely impossible
for anyone to show the correct execution trace of the input to H(P,P)
under the assumption that H performs an x86 emulation of its input
on the basis of the x86 source-code for P alone without seeing the
source-code for H ???

Code: Select all

_P()
[00001352](01)  55              push ebp
[00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01)  50              push eax      // push P
[00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
[0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
[00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
[00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
[00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
[0000136c](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:09 pm So in other words you are claiming that it is completely impossible
for anyone to show the correct execution trace of the input to H(P,P)
under the assumption that H performs an x86 emulation of its input ???

Code: Select all

_P()
[00001352](01)  55              push ebp
[00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01)  50              push eax      // push P
[00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
[0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
[00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
[00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
[00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
[00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
[0000136c](01)  c3              ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
NOOBDY can execute that code except you!

You haven't given us H.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by PeteOlcott »

God damned liars always dodge direct questions.

So in other words you are claiming that it is completely impossible
for anyone to show the correct execution trace of the input to H(P,P)
under the assumption that H performs an x86 emulation of its input ???


Yes or No !
(everything else is a dishonest dodge by a God damned liar)
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:12 pm God damned liars always dodge direct questions.

So in other words you are claiming that it is completely impossible
for anyone to show the correct execution trace of the input to H(P,P)
under the assumption that H performs an x86 emulation of its input ???
Fuck me. Are you actually capable of basic English comprehension?!?

I am not making any claims about the "possibility" or "impossibility" of anything.
I am using the fact that YOU agree with the validity of YOUR own proof.

BECAUSE you agree that H can emulate/trace P
THEREFORE you also agree that P can emulate/trace H!

BECAUSE H can emulate P to determine that P does; or doesn't halt
THEREFORE P can emulate H - obtain whatever answer H gives and DO THE OPPOSITE THING.
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:12 pm Yes or No !
MAYBE! Do you even understand monads ?!?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(fu ... ple:_Maybe
PeteOlcott wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 8:12 pm (everything else is a dishonest dodge by a God damned liar)
Well, we can agree about THAT! You fucking dishonest dodger! You God damned liar!

I've asked you to provide the source code for H over and over. And you continue dodging the request.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by PeteOlcott »

Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:

Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of finite strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret" instruction.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _simulatio

--
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Post by Skepdick »

PeteOlcott wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 4:24 pm Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct

Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of finite strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret" instruction.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _simulatio

--
Q.E.D you are an idiot who doesn't understand even basic logic, never mind software engineering.

Step 1: We take your argument at face value! We accept your claim that H emulates P correctly.
Step 2: BASED ON YOUR OWN CLAIM that H emulates P correctly it follows trivially by induction that P emulates H correctly!

Because P emulates H correctly it trivially follows that P can always contradict H.
Post Reply