Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond


devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

SubjectAuthor
* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ keyolcott
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |+* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    || `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |  `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |     `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |   |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |       |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |         `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |          +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |          `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |           `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Dennis Bush
    |   |        |    |            | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | | +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            | |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |             +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    |   |        |    |             `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |              `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |               `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |                `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |                 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Andy Walker
    `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<hyL4K.210731$OT%7.131828@fx07.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29954&group=comp.theory#29954

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx07.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vm35$rth$1@dont-email.me>
<2fmdne-EPaRPwc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vngt$526$1@dont-email.me>
<GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me>
<L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 199
Message-ID: <hyL4K.210731$OT%7.131828@fx07.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:32:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10827
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:32 UTC

On 4/10/22 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either
>>>>>>>>>>>> use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input
>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the
>>>>>>>>>> *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input
>>>>>>>>>> defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is
>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the
>>>>>>>>> mapping of
>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own
>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide
>>>>>>>> any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to
>>>>>>>> any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩
>>>>>>> or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY
>>>>>> REJECTED
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>
>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>> It has no associated meaning
>>
>> Sure it does.  Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status
>> criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs
>> for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>
>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>
> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> correct halt deciders.
>
> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29955&group=comp.theory#29955

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:36:04 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:36:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vm35$rth$1@dont-email.me> <2fmdne-EPaRPwc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vngt$526$1@dont-email.me> <GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me> <L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 174
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EsOJxOF+THo4KM8ZHh06GAUroBRGimwFFuyDFHOimcEu4jjr2M0aSNLwoCaSbAlMOUnfqM+jEcbAO+K!KqRwJNdgc+XosDzuulTTdsPvx1WI20j6mfqmFpqaIn0v55ksCzE5Sv4ibgIecpe5piHcAflmOH06
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 11508
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:36 UTC

On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>
>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>
>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>
>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>> mentioned it.
>
> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29956&group=comp.theory#29956

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9a89:0:b0:69c:29e6:f5de with SMTP id c131-20020a379a89000000b0069c29e6f5demr407046qke.14.1649641127319;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:826:b0:2eb:753b:169d with SMTP id
by6-20020a05690c082600b002eb753b169dmr23859443ywb.265.1649641127120; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 18:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vm35$rth$1@dont-email.me> <2fmdne-EPaRPwc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vngt$526$1@dont-email.me> <GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me> <L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com> <zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com> <hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com> <YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:38:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 237
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:38 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>
> >>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >> mentioned it.
> >
> > If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29957&group=comp.theory#29957

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:43:40 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:43:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me>
<L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 179
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KpE/h0rPIq3D3J/oFSeBq//vf19mdqG6+cfy0E6afbyqL1YvM6sKzDbDxLl2eUZBqm2bGkApn2SCsHx!X8llEaSwffm9JVsGQhJaww2ohLiwV5MgesrWz0HMiPQZq7RXMMi+e3j+ta3EjBbR4mtkoMJaZ2Y4
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12137
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:43 UTC

On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>> mentioned it.
>>>
>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>
> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<%NL4K.569300$LN2.357740@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29958&group=comp.theory#29958

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2fmdne-EPaRPwc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vngt$526$1@dont-email.me>
<GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me>
<L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 217
Message-ID: <%NL4K.569300$LN2.357740@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:48:46 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 12277
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:48 UTC

On 4/10/22 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to
>>>>>>>>>>>> provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their
>>>>>>>>>> own final
>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY
>>>>>>>>>> REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status
>>>>>> criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and
>>>>>> runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3
>>>>>> rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>
>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>> mentioned it.
>>
>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able
>> to explain exactly how to determine that.
>
> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<%OL4K.569408$LN2.140456@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29959&group=comp.theory#29959

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me> <9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2vm35$rth$1@dont-email.me> <2fmdne-EPaRPwc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vngt$526$1@dont-email.me> <GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me> <L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 210
Message-ID: <%OL4K.569408$LN2.140456@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:49:51 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 11539
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:49 UTC

On 4/10/22 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the
>>>>>>>>>>> mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their
>>>>>>>>>>> own final
>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide
>>>>>>>>>> any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied
>>>>>>>>>> to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩
>>>>>>>>> or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own
>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY
>>>>>>>> REJECTED
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status
>>>> criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and
>>>> runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3
>>>> rejects <N><5>.
>>>>
>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>
>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>
>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>
> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> mentioned it.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29960&group=comp.theory#29960

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2946:b0:67b:3047:6d9d with SMTP id n6-20020a05620a294600b0067b30476d9dmr20157017qkp.691.1649642011868;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:7b43:0:b0:2ec:8bb:3aef with SMTP id
w64-20020a817b43000000b002ec08bb3aefmr3904422ywc.267.1649642011702; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 18:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<GaadnRYVr4TB_s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me>
<L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:53:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 248
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:53 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>> mentioned it.
> >>>
> >>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >
> > Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<taidndBrW_GlF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29961&group=comp.theory#29961

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:54:00 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:53:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vod6$9pl$1@dont-email.me> <L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <taidndBrW_GlF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 237
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Lbth/nvIWIylEu4YQRcxEHs2NGwGEGZUxXCZRh4MU83lXNoNXaqyqCzUwMQ/Qf95yIzFN/EhyBa5GKC!j7z7e5Ogm3WxNPzzzb0gzsKWzsdtnjD8QRktmglezLDACpXCL4YbYjq85X/b9EiLRQGUqtMZM6cF
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 13505
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:53 UTC

On 4/10/2022 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their
>>>>>>>>>>>> own final
>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status
>>>>>>>> criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and
>>>>>>>> runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3
>>>>>>>> rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own
>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their
>>>>>>> car and
>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's
>>>>>> broken?
>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>
>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be
>>>> able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your
>>> reputation.
>>
>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken.  If you don't, I'll be
>> forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>
> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29962&group=comp.theory#29962

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:55:15 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 20:55:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 187
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-r4Urab6t6Qp2C+u4vaFbcjrOZHQlPUvzHVtpddayphE3BYt0en++HNXnoovlSqr65qY0CAZaUue5pvs!OHnByopiHc3Fhj1Fv23bmNlWYhsuQOgPrSYtPcA5chRGiGDgh6T2cjxHvLxdg6fO6AykANPfAvKc
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12895
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:55 UTC

On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>
>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>
> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>
> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29963&group=comp.theory#29963

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:24f:b0:2e1:d658:a595 with SMTP id c15-20020a05622a024f00b002e1d658a595mr24326585qtx.657.1649642381279;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7c86:0:b0:641:1a51:aa12 with SMTP id
x128-20020a257c86000000b006411a51aa12mr6925471ybc.605.1649642381001; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 18:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com> <zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com> <hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com> <YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:59:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 261
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 01:59 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>
> >>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
> >
> > That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >
> > Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29964&group=comp.theory#29964

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:02:49 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:02:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 197
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5eSV66FB11NVxjre9e5Bt+FP09kttInZTMr3z7e3PCyyp3ZvUNx9JUaF3IGYvlufBFxW4obU2vO9V+o!nMlzd2Fg+dQnLAozWULlHgt18V9I+03c+5Xp0+H8vrNeWK8h/cdLx5dBYq3/jW8YcS4kTvBFni2B
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 13724
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:02 UTC

On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>
>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>
>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>
> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>
> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29965&group=comp.theory#29965

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5b8f:0:b0:441:248c:2ae0 with SMTP id 15-20020ad45b8f000000b00441248c2ae0mr25905082qvp.39.1649642776261;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:230d:0:b0:641:375c:b5ad with SMTP id
j13-20020a25230d000000b00641375cb5admr4153949ybj.137.1649642776062; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 19:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com> <hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com> <YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:06:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 15927
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:06 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
> >>>
> >>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >>>
> >>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
> >
> > This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
> >
> > Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>
> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29966&group=comp.theory#29966

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:09:34 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:09:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 208
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NCyq8srobRTxiyNppunaL0zKSZfcBfP6IxXHzX9+CCDEZo/maOzh5uzIld37ohhruKDFCEuUkpDSHeQ!ub70ho4DxESZhPL5Q7NMrWlOw0thpA3t3NegC46ULnXh6qL5AbYtIm1vun3E60iLpa1Uqigc56YU
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 14627
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:09 UTC

On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>
>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>
>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>
>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>
> Dishonest dodge.
>
> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29967&group=comp.theory#29967

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:44b4:0:b0:444:45d6:ec25 with SMTP id n20-20020ad444b4000000b0044445d6ec25mr2429978qvt.24.1649643430805;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:db0b:0:b0:2eb:fc48:7d70 with SMTP id
d11-20020a0ddb0b000000b002ebfc487d70mr6137701ywe.161.1649643430538; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com> <YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:17:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 16974
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:17 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
> >>>
> >>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
> >>>
> >>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
> >>
> >> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> >> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
> >
> > Dishonest dodge.
> >
> > If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> have proof that this simulation would never end.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<_cM4K.815223$aT3.687093@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29968&group=comp.theory#29968

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 265
Message-ID: <_cM4K.815223$aT3.687093@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:17:34 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15295
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:17 UTC

On 4/10/22 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input defines the correct answer, so H answers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n>
>>>>>>>>>>>> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in
>>>>>>>>>>>> state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their
>>>>>>>>>>>> own final
>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only
>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive
>>>>>>>>>>> their car and
>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's
>>>>>>>>>> broken?
>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before
>>>>>>>>> you first
>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be
>>>>>>>> able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your
>>>>>>> reputation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll
>>>>>> be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>
>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own
>>>> logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing
>>>> head games.
>>>>
>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit
>>>> that it is not.
>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>
>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>
>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit
>> that it is not.
>
> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>
> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<PeM4K.815224$aT3.402370@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29969&group=comp.theory#29969

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 281
Message-ID: <PeM4K.815224$aT3.402370@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:19:30 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 16368
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:19 UTC

On 4/10/22 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the input defines the correct answer, so H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before
>>>>>>>>>>> you first
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should
>>>>>>>>>> be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your
>>>>>>>>> reputation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't,
>>>>>>>> I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own
>>>>>> logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm
>>>>>> playing head games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or
>>>>>> admit that it is not.
>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>
>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>
>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit
>>>> that it is not.
>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>
>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>
>> Dishonest dodge.
>>
>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that.  Tell
>> us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt
>> decider gives is correct.
>
> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> have proof that this simulation would never end.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<%fM4K.815225$aT3.531708@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29970&group=comp.theory#29970

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L4KdnfVcMrHZ-87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7256159c-d379-4cec-9730-0f958e7bb848n@googlegroups.com>
<zJqdnWmS9-al8s7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0e0a2c65-5678-462b-9920-fa3dfe0941cen@googlegroups.com>
<hNWdnfSgCeBn5c7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1ac48582-e273-466c-850e-e34cb297edc7n@googlegroups.com>
<YLCdnT1GU9c_4M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<taidndBrW_GlF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <taidndBrW_GlF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 235
Message-ID: <%fM4K.815225$aT3.531708@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:20:47 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 13425
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:20 UTC

On 4/10/22 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 8:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt
>>>>>>>>> status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as
>>>>>>>>> input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state
>>>>>>>>> N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own
>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their
>>>>>>>> car and
>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's
>>>>>>> broken?
>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you
>>>>>> first
>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be
>>>>> able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your
>>>> reputation.
>>>
>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken.  If you don't, I'll be
>>> forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>
>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29971&group=comp.theory#29971

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:27:13 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:27:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 216
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-qWusdW/gwPrZyDkAKaj2e+dDfVPB5/lNU6lU9ir7HAUv/HWfzflAkG1jxJbW00RsyIMiL93Sse9/N8E!m1WhMy8mBBHiKcynOLpRp7MGxQ5rmNBzA5Dt38fBIgJNOuv8YG7v5HTjSJ3NiaOXa06JhQ2X4Cyo
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 15518
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:27 UTC

On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>
>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>
>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>>
>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>
>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29972&group=comp.theory#29972

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4691:b0:67d:9bab:33d7 with SMTP id bq17-20020a05620a469100b0067d9bab33d7mr20252734qkb.500.1649644380086;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9244:0:b0:641:4066:985a with SMTP id
e4-20020a259244000000b006414066985amr2814454ybo.457.1649644379871; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0a0f8406-2c99-4591-976c-6f34ae6afe09n@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWu6-6Gi4s7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:33:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 313
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:32 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> >>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail..
> >>>
> >>> Dishonest dodge.
> >>>
> >>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
> >> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> >> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
> >>
>
> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >
> > Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29973&group=comp.theory#29973

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:38:26 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:38:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 238
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WT0kQaDtR8UZCfclA3f4D4/Ngg7aYxziEJEfjmwWJ0ZUYaZB57v6AqgqV01stsGzOc4bIYme1vq9+GV!aoCGK9+v2dBjKhB+S02aVsHWPze0NcM1U216oR9v6Krl73Tx+i4+gAs8BvW7qp+HRZFC4JSJU/28
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 17337
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:38 UTC

On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>
>>
>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>
>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>
> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29974&group=comp.theory#29974

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5dea:0:b0:441:5fdf:dd9c with SMTP id jn10-20020ad45dea000000b004415fdfdd9cmr24692029qvb.44.1649644903107;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b285:0:b0:641:2265:6744 with SMTP id
k5-20020a25b285000000b0064122656744mr5451083ybj.589.1649644902896; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b05ef39c-0c44-46bb-adef-83e7a8cda12fn@googlegroups.com> <4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:41:43 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 355
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:41 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> >>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dishonest dodge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
> >>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> >>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>
> >>
> >> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >>>
> >>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
> >> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
> >> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
> >
> > Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
> >
> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
> the decision tree.
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>
> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
> non-halting.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29975&group=comp.theory#29975

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:44:18 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:44:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 245
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-TMSeE5n63rMFFwLlDagi61QYU5jO+SBA8JOncPsS6DNPPG1TgiF0ZvtsGM/b++N5ptNJNDHypZuHeqw!jFCGTFE0TV+D0zUrcs53YRoAyYwLyM1wifF00OHydOcVqzwTgx0Cci5xYjD2SJWDwWf5295q15pW
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 18492
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:44 UTC

On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
>>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
>>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
>>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>>>
>>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>
>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
>> the decision tree.
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>> H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>> Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>
>> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
>> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
>> non-halting.
>
> Now you're the one getting off topic. We were talking about how to determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
>
> If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29976&group=comp.theory#29976

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:625:b0:441:1578:620b with SMTP id a5-20020a056214062500b004411578620bmr25355543qvx.126.1649645245132;
Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1382:b0:63d:be0c:2e7c with SMTP id
x2-20020a056902138200b0063dbe0c2e7cmr21754947ybu.122.1649645244942; Sun, 10
Apr 2022 19:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 19:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com> <S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com> <lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com> <maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:47:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 370
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:47 UTC

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:44:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
> >>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
> >>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
> >>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
> >>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> >>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
> >>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
> >>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
> >>>
> >>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
> >>>
> >> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
> >> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
> >> the decision tree.
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>
> >> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >> H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >> Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >>
> >> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
> >> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
> >> non-halting.
> >
> > Now you're the one getting off topic. We were talking about how to determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
> >
> > If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
> >
> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29977&group=comp.theory#29977

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:53:31 -0500
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 21:53:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b4859109-147e-4f5b-9566-313318bbde4an@googlegroups.com>
<maednRj7IZ6fC87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <0c6d1a0e-5c9d-4a45-a6c5-a00ff93b29e5n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <YdOdnYHJUb22Bc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 256
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-O6re/UZUr+NT5HyFJO3isKnSQrMtVsEdW1yt9oylYRAs7VAljKjT4PHyGWapAHpHxi/jzZOeNAYzdU2!K2UXyBb9IscuE9ZPhdM9pA7bN32x6a+tRu268VopqpCmV6zbpTx29Y8yEhLhVREVyWSSrBqSZH8/
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 19691
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:53 UTC

On 4/10/2022 9:47 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:44:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 9:41 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish. That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn // what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent. You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM applied to the input defines the correct answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary), then the above can be applied to any simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04% reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't, I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>>>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single detail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that. Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating halt decider gives is correct.
>>>>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>>>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>>>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that X was incorrect to report non-halting?
>>>>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
>>>>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong. Ha3 is one of these. The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others. So if one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>>>
>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
>>>> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
>>>> the decision tree.
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>> Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>> H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>> Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>
>>>> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
>>>> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
>>>> non-halting.
>>>
>>> Now you're the one getting off topic. We were talking about how to determine whether a given simulating halt decider is giving the correct answer, which is actually relevant to what you just posted.
>>>
>>> If one simulating halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting, would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't simulate for long enough?
>>>
>> There is a single ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of a halt decider
>> and that is whether its correctly simulated input would halt.
>
> That being the case, if X simulates a given input and reports non-halting, and Y simulates the same input and (never leaving UTM mode) reports halting, wouldn't that mean the correctly simulated input would halt?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ correct halt deciding criteria ]

<eLM4K.129846$WZCa.1742@fx08.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29978&group=comp.theory#29978

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4KSdnWW6-6ExHc7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d2e4a782-2e7a-44e4-9607-edb476c5051dn@googlegroups.com>
<S5OdndBkD7VHHs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<08139889-b966-403a-83d5-40284b0920c2n@googlegroups.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 341
Message-ID: <eLM4K.129846$WZCa.1742@fx08.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 22:54:05 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 20174
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 02:54 UTC

On 4/10/22 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 9:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:27:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 9:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:09:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:06 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 10:02:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:55:22 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:43:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:36:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:26:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:07:18 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 8:03 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 9:00:25 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 8:40:34 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:28 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:58:55 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 6:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 17:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 16:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:49 PM, André G. Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 15:00, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 3:07 PM, André G. Isaak
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to get you to write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using correct and coherent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation. That's one of the things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll need to be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if you ever hope to publish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That involves remembering to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always include conditions and using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same terms in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'equations' as in your text.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how that makes me a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deceitful bastard'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT you pretended to not know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean by embedded_H so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you could artificially contrive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fake basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when no actual basis for rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists makes you a deceitful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bastard.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS THE CASE THAT the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H never reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ under any condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what-so-ever therefore ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proved to specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is now the third reply you've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made to the same post.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That post didn't make any arguments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever about your claims.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It simply pointed out that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misusing your notation and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> urged you to correct it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the notation is junk, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition is also junk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's like "stipulating" that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +×yz÷² = ±z+³
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless because the notation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless, much like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your notation above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is meaningless:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's the condition?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With no conditions specified, the above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the pure simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is still nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And again you're still being inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can either use H or use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H, but you can't mix the two.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can. I just did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that H pretends that it is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a UTM to see what its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input would do in this case. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would never reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state then H correctly rejects this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Turing Machine cannot "pretend" to be some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different Turing Machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can perform a pure simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until this simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches a repeating behavior pattern that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves this input never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's the case, why does an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the *same* input halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Because the result of an actual UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the input defines the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer, so H answers wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Intuitively that would seem to be true, this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ultimate definition of correct is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of the mapping of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inputs to an accept or reject state on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that these inputs specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since embedded_H is the same as H (as you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet to provide any evidence to the contrary),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then the above can be applied to any simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic is the single point that the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_h cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that same logic gives us this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS THE ULTIMATE MEASURE OF THEIR HALTING BEHAVIOR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and conclusively proves they specify a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE SIMULATED INPUT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FINAL STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS SINGLE FACT BY ITSELF PROVES THAT THE INPUT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS CORRECTLY REJECTED
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to find an error in the above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are pure nonsense gibberish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has no associated meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure it does. Ha3 is a simulating halt decider whose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status criteria is to abort after 3 steps, and N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> takes <n> as input and runs for exactly n steps before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting in state N.qy. And Ha3 rejects <N><5>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That simulated inputs <N><5> to Ha3 would never reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are starting with a broken halt decider, my rules
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only apply to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct halt deciders.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like you are saying that no one can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive their car and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to prove this you drive your car into a tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what criteria would you apply to Ha3 to determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's broken?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would simply say that ridiculously stupid ideas such as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha3 should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be presented by someone with your top 0.04%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reputation they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> denigrate you. You must know how stupid this idea was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it's so obvious to you that Ha3 is broken, then you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be able to explain exactly how to determine that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously a very lame attempt at a head game by a guy with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain how you would determine Ha3 is broken. If you don't,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be forced to conclude that you agree that it's correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit talking to you until you stop the head games.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That you have difficultly following my logic (actually, your
>>>>>>>>>> own logic applied to a different halt decider) doesn't mean
>>>>>>>>>> I'm playing head games.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or
>>>>>>>>>> admit that it is not.
>>>>>>>>> You know that the question is mere denigration:
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFTP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is how you know you're stuck, when you go completely off
>>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Explain exactly how you would determine that Ha3 is broken, or
>>>>>>>> admit that it is not.
>>>>>>> I will ask you a similar question in the same vein:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly how do you know that driving a car into a tree is not a very
>>>>>>> good way to see how a car drives, please provide every single
>>>>>>> detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dishonest dodge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Ha3 is broken, explain exactly how you would determine that.
>>>>>> Tell us how you would determine that the result that a simulating
>>>>>> halt decider gives is correct.
>>>>> I thought of a good way to answer this.
>>>>> It does not meet the specs of a simulating halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
>>> has proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>>
>>>> Since a given halt decider X has a fixed algorithm, that would mean
>>>> the input would need to be passed to a different halt decider Y. So
>>>> if Y showed that the input halts, would you agree that it shows that
>>>> X was incorrect to report non-halting?
>>> The given halt decider has a fixed algorithm that can be applied to any
>>> input on its tape. The whole idea of Y seems pretty crazy.
>>
>> Multiple candidate halt deciders H can exist, with each one
>> potentially getting cases right that another might get wrong.  Ha3 is
>> one of these.  The multiple halt deciders you refer to as "H" (and
>> which Ha3 is actually a part of) are others.  So if one simulating
>> halt decider X reports a given input as non-halting, and if another
>> simulating halt decider Y is given the same input and reports halting,
>> would you agree that Y shows that X was incorrect because it didn't
>> simulate for long enough?
>>
>
> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben for 17
> years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are trimmed off of
> the decision tree.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>    H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>    Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>
> Since we can see that the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to embedded_H never
> reaches its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ we know that it is
> non-halting.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor