quentron.com

[lumen]

Considering that the only element in this example which returns with 'true' or 'false' is WillThisEnd() I'll assume that's what you're talking about.

In which case...you just admitted your interpreter doesn't work.

If WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf) returns true.  It's clear from the logic of WillThisEndOnSelf() that actually the program does not terminate.  Thus WillThisEnd() is not responding with the correct answer.  So you should go fix your code.

If you do and now with your fixed code WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf) returns false.  It's clear from the logic of WillThisEndOnSelf() that it actually does terminate.  Thus WillThisEnd is not responding with the correct answer.  So you should go fix your code.

If you do and now with your fixed code WillThisEnd(WillThisEndOnSelf,WillThisEndOnSelf) does not return with either 'true' or 'false' then it has failed to solve the problem.

We have covered every possible output of WillThisEnd() which you agreed is equivalent to your interpreter.  Each of it's outputs is utterly wrong in this case.  Thus it can not satisfy the requirements of the halting problem.

Yawn...this was about as challenging as playing naughts and crosses with my son.

If I may be so bold and point out that your mistake was to treat this like a technical problem.  It isn't one.   Essentially this is no different than the "algebra box" problem I gave you earlier.  Even you appeared to admit that the box could not operate as described (and you didn't even know what was inside the box!).  Understanding this proof, or any proof is no different than that.

Yet the paradox you claim is a problem, is not a problem.

I understood this to be what you were trying to use as some kind of proof that it could not work and that's why the parameters are passed by copy.
You see each instance is separate and will end. When it is running itself, it is running a copy of itself that will indeed end. 
So in the end it will return TRUE because the copy of itself ran normally and did end.

But go ahead and and claim whatever you want, It's what I expected anyway.
It's not that you wanted a way to do it, you just wanted to say it couldn't work.

[sarkeizen]

Yet the paradox you claim is a problem, is not a problem.

Yeah, my son thinks he can win tic-tac-toe as well...

I understood this to be what you were trying to use as some kind of proof that it could not work and that's why the parameters are passed by copy. You see each instance is separate and will end. When it is running itself, it is running a copy of itself that will indeed end. 

Wow if they give out Oscars for vagueness you would win hands down!  So WillThisEnd(program,data) copies the pointers?  Copies the program and data?  Calls Allah (swt) and asks him?  Really I've never met someone who adds terms, changes terms and tries so very hard NOT to explain what they're talking about.

I'll make it simple for you:

i) When WillThisEndOnSelf calls WillThisEnd either WillThisEnd returns or it does not.  If it does not return you lose.

ii) When WillThisEnd returns. The value it returns with is irrelevant.

iii) In either case the program executes the opposite behavior.

Without altering WillThisEndOnSelf you cant fix this.

But go ahead and and claim whatever you want, It's what I expected anyway.

How about you first make an argument.  All I see here is you claiming victory and then sweeping the details under the rug.

"Oh you know, it just works...cause....parameters!"

Meh...or keep hiding your argument. 

[lumen]

Yeah, my son thinks he can win tic-tac-toe as well...Wow if they give out Oscars for vagueness you would win hands down!  So WillThisEnd(program,data) copies the pointers?  Copies the program and data?  Calls Allah (swt) and asks him?  Really I've never met someone who adds terms, changes terms and tries so very hard NOT to explain what they're talking about.

I'll make it simple for you:

i) When WillThisEndOnSelf calls WillThisEnd either WillThisEnd returns or it does not.  If it does not return you lose.

ii) When WillThisEnd returns. The value it returns with is irrelevant.

iii) In either case the program executes the opposite behavior.

Without altering WillThisEndOnSelf you cant fix this. How about you first make an argument.  All I see here is you claiming victory and then sweeping the details under the rug.

"Oh you know, it just works...cause....parameters!"

Meh...or keep hiding your argument.

Are you sure you want to keep insulting me, because my next move is checkmate!

[sarkeizen]

Are you sure you want to keep insulting me, because my next move is checkmate!

*yawn* The effect is better if you just go ahead and checkmate me.  Similar to how I smashed your argument when I dropped WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf) on your ass.

When you attempt your checkmate, please avoid making up new terms, changing the names of old terms, being imprecise, don't introduce terms like "instance" without defining what an "instance" is.

I mean you can (and probably will) break these rules, probably deliberately but the result is just a slower argument.

Were I to guess you still think this is a technology problem rather than a logical one.  So you probably think that it's an issue about the program state.   It isn't.  I hope not, because that's more boring than you're already being (and you're being plenty boring).

[lumen]

*yawn* The effect is better if you just go ahead and checkmate me.  Similar to how I smashed your argument when I dropped WillThisEndOnSelf(WillThisEndOnSelf) on your ass.

When you attempt your checkmate, please avoid making up new terms, changing the names of old terms, being imprecise, don't introduce terms like "instance" without defining what an "instance" is.

I mean you can (and probably will) break these rules, probably deliberately but the result is just a slower argument.

Were I to guess you still think this is a technology problem rather than a logical one.  So you probably think that it's an issue about the program state.   It isn't.  I hope not, because that's more boring than you're already being (and you're being plenty boring).

Actually no, I made it especially to fit your EXACT rules. Did I say 8 years?
I ment 38 years.