Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

An engineer is someone who does list processing in FORTRAN.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

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) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29701&group=comp.theory#29701

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1643:b0:42c:2865:d1e7 with SMTP id f3-20020a056214164300b0042c2865d1e7mr17094478qvw.52.1649436321562;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:f883:0:b0:2d0:ee66:5f97 with SMTP id
i125-20020a0df883000000b002d0ee665f97mr16359933ywf.313.1649436321304; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 09:45:21 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <WuWdnRn38KCCw83_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>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com> <i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com> <W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com> <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com> <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com> <u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com> <WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 16:45:21 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 353
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:45 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:09:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It does not:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> >>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
> >>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
> >>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
> >>>> a halting computation.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
> >>>> intuition.
> >>>>
> >>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>
> >>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
> >> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
> >> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
> >> is not a halting computation.
> >
> > Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> Conclusively proving that embedded_H would be correct when it rejects
> its input.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29702&group=comp.theory#29702

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:43a5:b0:69b:ed4a:4061 with SMTP id a37-20020a05620a43a500b0069bed4a4061mr1320821qkp.229.1649436413505;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:154a:b0:639:fdd5:2f94 with SMTP id
r10-20020a056902154a00b00639fdd52f94mr15220364ybu.320.1649436413343; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 09:46:53 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_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>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org> <7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 16:46:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 23
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:46 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
> > Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > ...
> >>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
> >>
> >> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> >> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
> >> and get away with the strawman error.
> >
> > You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
> > that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
> > out that you "dog" is purring.
> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.

embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29703&group=comp.theory#29703

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:02:17 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:02:15 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 246
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ijm7QF8O3Rr4LQMQPvgTR8ed7crf0ceJrstqEgGnfS+STmUScju7NrBnMEIXcb8XKywyka+Vh8beISk!DwCtRnlRNhOQSqHZxQVtCv+i5WTasoKNbhKOR/0eIW9Cubay//PuPRIAFZ1Dt8vfHgwSLJADOH/E!Lg==
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: 17274
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:02 UTC

On 4/8/2022 11:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:09:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
>>>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
>>>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
>>>>>> a halting computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
>>>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>>>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
>>>> is not a halting computation.
>>>
>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>> Conclusively proving that embedded_H would be correct when it rejects
>> its input.
>
> Correction: conclusively proves that Hn (which you implicitly agree is the same as embedded_Hn due to lack of evidence to the contrary)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29704&group=comp.theory#29704

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:06:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:06:13 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WGmibT3CC1JcT+TV0eV/cVmcBkoW8iL0CRN00SWbrwbieBHeMZAJ9qz+eN/MF1JLFXDe1hJevC15EjJ!EZ2K48KeiRRMP6x3JzHS0lZOAOImuxFsa7K/XXSeiKIGSMpDWFTnun2ofAZnD6BjJOpyofaYtMir!kw==
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: 3657
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:06 UTC

On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>>>
>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
>>>
>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
>
> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.

Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<e69dea75-ec68-48a7-ae2c-b8a402871402n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29705&group=comp.theory#29705

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1aa2:b0:67d:1637:7a9e with SMTP id bl34-20020a05620a1aa200b0067d16377a9emr13526879qkb.680.1649437840811;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b984:0:b0:629:6b2a:8328 with SMTP id
r4-20020a25b984000000b006296b2a8328mr15680355ybg.112.1649437840571; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:10:40 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <N7qdnbRbV7YE983_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>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com> <W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com> <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com> <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com> <u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com> <WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com> <N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e69dea75-ec68-48a7-ae2c-b8a402871402n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:10:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 362
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:10 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:02:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 11:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:09:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It does not:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> >>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >>>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >>>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >>>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >>>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
> >>>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
> >>>>>> a halting computation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
> >>>>>> intuition.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
> >>>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
> >>>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
> >>>> is not a halting computation.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> >> Conclusively proving that embedded_H would be correct when it rejects
> >> its input.
> >
> > Correction: conclusively proves that Hn (which you implicitly agree is the same as embedded_Hn due to lack of evidence to the contrary)
> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29706&group=comp.theory#29706

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:20cb:b0:443:da69:ed48 with SMTP id 11-20020a05621420cb00b00443da69ed48mr16385139qve.131.1649438025099;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:e607:0:b0:2eb:87de:2cc4 with SMTP id
p7-20020a0de607000000b002eb87de2cc4mr16798931ywe.485.1649438024953; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:13:44 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_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>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com> <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com> <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com> <ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org> <7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com> <VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:13:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 40
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:13 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
> >>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
> >>>>
> >>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> >>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
> >>>> and get away with the strawman error.
> >>>
> >>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
> >>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
> >>> out that you "dog" is purring.
> >> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> >> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
> >
> > embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.

You're mixing up your H's yet again. embedded_Hn / Hn cannot abort. embedded_Ha / Ha can.

Ha / embedded_Ha rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29707&group=comp.theory#29707

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2886:b0:699:bab7:ae78 with SMTP id j6-20020a05620a288600b00699bab7ae78mr13345617qkp.618.1649438409039;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:20:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:b47:0:b0:63d:b49f:624a with SMTP id
b7-20020a5b0b47000000b0063db49f624amr14854881ybr.149.1649438408851; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:20:08 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_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>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com> <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com> <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com> <ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org> <7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com> <VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:20:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 38
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:20 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
> >>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
> >>>>
> >>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> >>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
> >>>> and get away with the strawman error.
> >>>
> >>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
> >>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
> >>> out that you "dog" is purring.
> >> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> >> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
> >
> > embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.

The Linz proof doesn't say that accept and reject are both wrong *for a given H*. Any specific H^ applied to <H^> either halts or doesn't. What the proof says is that the H which that H^ is built from cannot correctly determine that (although some other halt decider could).

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<Ku-dnb6vpPRW883_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29708&group=comp.theory#29708

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:20:11 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:20:10 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e69dea75-ec68-48a7-ae2c-b8a402871402n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e69dea75-ec68-48a7-ae2c-b8a402871402n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Ku-dnb6vpPRW883_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 253
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Qq47wgXQ0q+0PQ/sI/rviHVZ0zF6cOEeFBjL6QnZIzUKWeu4R6waGoC1UPpoz1S98ik0SEk9TveWLiu!BNTNZJkObtwSpvRtvmeSsiXEtPIxEEJqG42n/tInhZWB1Jvoz/3v+GJJiuS1L6Gdvowy0/EjPPBd!4A==
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: 18207
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:20 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:02:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 11:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:09:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
>>>>>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
>>>>>>>> a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
>>>>>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
>>>>>> is not a halting computation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>> Conclusively proving that embedded_H would be correct when it rejects
>>>> its input.
>>>
>>> Correction: conclusively proves that Hn (which you implicitly agree is the same as embedded_Hn due to lack of evidence to the contrary)
>> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].
>
> Ĥn is built from Hn which *never* aborts, which is the only H which has the trace you show, so Hn is unable to report non-halting because it can't abort.
>
> Ĥa is built from Ha which does abort and does *not* have the above trace. Ĥa rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29709&group=comp.theory#29709

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:22:44 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:22:43 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pt3/VMt7RgP/N/SX0kVgMj8O5My36b9Rxa5W29JBiKXzoYOztxAFz+Qb6wnoUkpKjy82zyC78nsVYaj!XYaklzwwhk4uEhfrjv7uB3NHfQ99PZk4F/F70zG3HxQCWx2Zetb/c8w5D45Q/g5N6XGaju2TP0y+!Dw==
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: 4267
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:22 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
>>>>>
>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
>>>
>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
>
> You're mixing up your H's yet again. embedded_Hn / Hn cannot abort. embedded_Ha / Ha can.
>
> Ha / embedded_Ha rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>
>

It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
therefore embedded_H would correctly reject its input.

All of you Ha Ha crap is pure deceptive bullshit.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29710&group=comp.theory#29710

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:26:33 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:26:32 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 40
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5S4SrmFiT0pQmSL/z+1xNOzKD4YQTIBd3eoSRGyC8ET5GYT/n866HAIkuuKZLEHwvO4l7DLaieNm2bq!xBnIsMZ5k92lvNjXuS+VwW8rRAvmJy2NPfcgnoteSJKOOoDc5iy557c10iiJKWv33j7fApmU0yrd!zg==
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: 4084
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:26 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
>>>>>
>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
>>>
>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
>
> The Linz proof doesn't say that accept and reject are both wrong *for a given H*.

My notation is different yet what Linz says is that when embedded_H is
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both accept and reject are the wrong answer.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<857ee354-fd44-4ad8-ab2e-10d11adb4edbn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29711&group=comp.theory#29711

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:318c:b0:67e:d346:4ad9 with SMTP id bi12-20020a05620a318c00b0067ed3464ad9mr13832961qkb.493.1649438996435;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:dfd5:0:b0:63d:942d:d460 with SMTP id
w204-20020a25dfd5000000b0063d942dd460mr14712154ybg.589.1649438996248; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:29:56 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Ku-dnb6vpPRW883_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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com> <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com> <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com> <u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com> <WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com> <N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e69dea75-ec68-48a7-ae2c-b8a402871402n@googlegroups.com> <Ku-dnb6vpPRW883_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <857ee354-fd44-4ad8-ab2e-10d11adb4edbn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:29:56 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 364
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:29 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:20:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:02:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 11:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:09:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> >>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >>>>>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >>>>>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >>>>>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >>>>>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
> >>>>>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
> >>>>>>>> a halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
> >>>>>>>> intuition.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state.. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
> >>>>>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
> >>>>>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
> >>>>>> is not a halting computation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> >>>> Conclusively proving that embedded_H would be correct when it rejects
> >>>> its input.
> >>>
> >>> Correction: conclusively proves that Hn (which you implicitly agree is the same as embedded_Hn due to lack of evidence to the contrary)
> >> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].
> >
> > Ĥn is built from Hn which *never* aborts, which is the only H which has the trace you show, so Hn is unable to report non-halting because it can't abort.
> >
> > Ĥa is built from Ha which does abort and does *not* have the above trace. Ĥa rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>
> So you stupidly believe that aborting an input causes it to reach its
> final state?


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<b928a14d-8798-426c-9481-94954e93c27cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29712&group=comp.theory#29712

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:54a:0:b0:69a:f10c:f533 with SMTP id 71-20020a37054a000000b0069af10cf533mr3404819qkf.525.1649439162713;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:ac1:0:b0:63d:9fd4:ebf4 with SMTP id
a1-20020a5b0ac1000000b0063d9fd4ebf4mr14230456ybr.648.1649439162492; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:32:42 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_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>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com> <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com> <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com> <ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org> <7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com> <VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com> <Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b928a14d-8798-426c-9481-94954e93c27cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:32:42 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 56
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:32 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> >>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
> >>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
> >>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
> >>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> >>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
> >>>
> >>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
> >> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
> >> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
> >> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
> >> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
> >> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
> >
> > You're mixing up your H's yet again. embedded_Hn / Hn cannot abort. embedded_Ha / Ha can.
> >
> > Ha / embedded_Ha rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>
> >
> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
> therefore embedded_H would correctly reject its input.
>
> All of you Ha Ha crap is pure deceptive bullshit.

Just the opposite. The fact that I use Ha and Hn catches you when you're being deceptive when you say "H" because it makes it clear exactly which H you're referring to.

That's why you don't like talking about Ha and Hn because it exposes your errors. Which is why I'll continue to use them.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<942dnQAvqrEV783_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29714&group=comp.theory#29714

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:36:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:36:06 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e69dea75-ec68-48a7-ae2c-b8a402871402n@googlegroups.com>
<Ku-dnb6vpPRW883_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<857ee354-fd44-4ad8-ab2e-10d11adb4edbn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <857ee354-fd44-4ad8-ab2e-10d11adb4edbn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <942dnQAvqrEV783_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 260
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DdRLPcqcqDpFlUUq2i0xWcjFst99zuJyTD/C4uUQANvWkbHBfTOckpApDlRH5833rJBVzKLIaUKQPCx!4y+BSyDUGx+sfa1D8TuMIeRsUhJlJfA9qFzJ2g+1KbA3VNQTwCku56DP8bsz2yicIEu9rTJXy4I3!8g==
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: 19180
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:36 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:20:19 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 12:10 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:02:24 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:09:10 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done no such thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Liar !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
>>>>>>>>>> a halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
>>>>>>>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
>>>>>>>> is not a halting computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>>>> Conclusively proving that embedded_H would be correct when it rejects
>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correction: conclusively proves that Hn (which you implicitly agree is the same as embedded_Hn due to lack of evidence to the contrary)
>>>> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].
>>>
>>> Ĥn is built from Hn which *never* aborts, which is the only H which has the trace you show, so Hn is unable to report non-halting because it can't abort.
>>>
>>> Ĥa is built from Ha which does abort and does *not* have the above trace. Ĥa rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>
>> So you stupidly believe that aborting an input causes it to reach its
>> final state?
>
> Ha aborting its simulation of Ha^ applied to <Ha^> is what causes Hb's simulation of Ha^ applied to <Ha^> (as well as the direct execution of Ha^ applied to <Ha^>) to reach a final state.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<942dnQMvqrF5783_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29715&group=comp.theory#29715

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:37:40 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:37:39 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com>
<Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<b928a14d-8798-426c-9481-94954e93c27cn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b928a14d-8798-426c-9481-94954e93c27cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <942dnQMvqrF5783_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 54
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NdvzUxrZSJ9lZrZjU3AEsOH8q9COe8sDbwetrkC+XZAbqGLU8N+wOhv5CBuA7J69Bt/b0/A9+qMdCYn!MBA8gIvWyKtijECTAe3jZsk/plRptZ5s7iPH40iG/KthlIFwNX26k6KgPM2X7YVv8MV6+ODDx0fe!Ww==
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: 4918
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:37 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 12:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
>>>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>>>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
>>>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
>>>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
>>>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
>>>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
>>>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
>>>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> You're mixing up your H's yet again. embedded_Hn / Hn cannot abort. embedded_Ha / Ha can.
>>>
>>> Ha / embedded_Ha rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>
>>>
>> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
>> therefore embedded_H would correctly reject its input.
>>
>> All of you Ha Ha crap is pure deceptive bullshit.
>
> Just the opposite. The fact that I use Ha and Hn catches you when you're being deceptive when you say "H" because it makes it clear exactly which H you're referring to.
>
> That's why you don't like talking about Ha and Hn because it exposes your errors. Which is why I'll continue to use them.

Does the simulated input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> to embedded_H reach its own simulated
final state?

YES OR NO any other answer is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<87fc8e43-e4a2-491a-8043-6737705afb0en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29716&group=comp.theory#29716

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:43a5:b0:69b:ed4a:4061 with SMTP id a37-20020a05620a43a500b0069bed4a4061mr1494974qkp.229.1649439626289;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:897:0:b0:2eb:e5dd:d46e with SMTP id
145-20020a810897000000b002ebe5ddd46emr3797267ywi.267.1649439626121; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:40:26 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <942dnQMvqrF5783_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>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com>
<Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <b928a14d-8798-426c-9481-94954e93c27cn@googlegroups.com>
<942dnQMvqrF5783_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <87fc8e43-e4a2-491a-8043-6737705afb0en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:40:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 68
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:40 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:37:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 12:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> >>>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
> >>>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
> >>>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
> >>>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> >>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
> >>>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
> >>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
> >>>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
> >>>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
> >>>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
> >>>
> >>> You're mixing up your H's yet again. embedded_Hn / Hn cannot abort. embedded_Ha / Ha can.
> >>>
> >>> Ha / embedded_Ha rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>
> >>>
> >> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
> >> therefore embedded_H would correctly reject its input.
> >>
> >> All of you Ha Ha crap is pure deceptive bullshit.
> >
> > Just the opposite. The fact that I use Ha and Hn catches you when you're being deceptive when you say "H" because it makes it clear exactly which H you're referring to.
> >
> > That's why you don't like talking about Ha and Hn because it exposes your errors. Which is why I'll continue to use them.
> Does the simulated input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> to embedded_H reach its own simulated
> final state?
> YES OR NO any other answer is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.

So you're saying that Hb accepting <Ha^><Ha^> doesn't matter because only Ha can be correct about its own simulation of <Ha^><Ha^>?

Because if so then we need to have another conversation about Ha3 and <N><3>.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29717&group=comp.theory#29717

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:41:43 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
<6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:41:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f909b99a4b8980086934fca94b672d9";
logging-data="29959"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sWArwG3yds3C5/FRaaMdH"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:unf8eK2iJIDRgqcSGsUQejok/FM=
In-Reply-To: <6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:41 UTC

On 2022-04-08 11:26, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
>>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms
>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
>>>>
>>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to
>>>> abort to do so.
>>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
>>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
>>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
>>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
>>
>> The Linz proof doesn't say that accept and reject are both wrong *for
>> a given H*.
>
> My notation is different yet what Linz says is that when embedded_H is
> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both accept and reject are the wrong answer.

You really need to reread the Linz proof since it doesn't make the above
claim.

For starters, Linz doesn't talk about embedded_H at all. He talks about
H and Ĥ. To ask whether Ĥ gives the right answer or not is meaningless
since Ĥ isn't a decider nor is it claimed to compute any specific
problem. And Ĥ doesn't actually contain an embedded copy of H — it
contains a *modified* copy of H which no longer functions as a decider
and which also is not claimed to answer any particular question. You can
call this "embedded_H" if you want, but once again it is meaningless to
ask whether it gives the correct answer or not since there is no claim
made in the proof about which question it is supposed to answer.

What Linz points out is that regardless of how Ĥ behaves (or, if you
prefer, regardless of what answer embedded_H gives) the H from which Ĥ
is derived will always give the wrong answer when given <Ĥ> <Ĥ> as its
input. He certainly does not claim that both answers are wrong; just
that the answer given by H is wrong.

You can't just talk about what happens inside Ĥ unless you also talk
about what happens when <Ĥ> <Ĥ> is given to H as an input since that is
where the contradiction arises; He makes no claims about there being a
contradiction involved in what goes on inside Ĥ.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29719&group=comp.theory#29719

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:44:11 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:44:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f909b99a4b8980086934fca94b672d9";
logging-data="29959"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Xn1D6Snkn0xNfWd6s4Fkg"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EHQEymcWx79jLrZvgOxJKSFE1/U=
In-Reply-To: <N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:44 UTC

On 2022-04-08 11:02, olcott wrote:

> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].

You need to go back to the point where Dennis defined his Ha and Hn.
They don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<I7ydnTniz83p6M3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29720&group=comp.theory#29720

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:48:36 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:48:34 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com>
<Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<b928a14d-8798-426c-9481-94954e93c27cn@googlegroups.com>
<942dnQMvqrF5783_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fc8e43-e4a2-491a-8043-6737705afb0en@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87fc8e43-e4a2-491a-8043-6737705afb0en@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <I7ydnTniz83p6M3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 61
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-kKv7VEuwz5nfJ+szt5nOIvcZdyLG9UdUGJuTF/qdT1JWjMhpXiP1u8E9n1RzDLufAcZr7w1XL4JQ9Sk!veuyCnzLrkG75unG1RFH3BEDm2NUC0NDVEKyCySyaAe7YhvGr5UPIXi4hyW80VlnrYVeg3OIkHnH!Mw==
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: 5411
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:48 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:37:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 12:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 12:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
>>>>>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>>>>>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
>>>>>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
>>>>>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
>>>>>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
>>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
>>>>>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
>>>>>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
>>>>>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're mixing up your H's yet again. embedded_Hn / Hn cannot abort. embedded_Ha / Ha can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ha / embedded_Ha rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa.qn>
>>>>>
>>>> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
>>>> therefore embedded_H would correctly reject its input.
>>>>
>>>> All of you Ha Ha crap is pure deceptive bullshit.
>>>
>>> Just the opposite. The fact that I use Ha and Hn catches you when you're being deceptive when you say "H" because it makes it clear exactly which H you're referring to.
>>>
>>> That's why you don't like talking about Ha and Hn because it exposes your errors. Which is why I'll continue to use them.
>> Does the simulated input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> to embedded_H reach its own simulated
>> final state?
>> YES OR NO any other answer is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.
>
> So you're saying that Hb accepting <Ha^><Ha^> doesn't matter because only Ha can be correct about its own simulation of <Ha^><Ha^>?
>
> Because if so then we need to have another conversation about Ha3 and <N><3>.

That was not YES or NO, it was a deceitful attempt at getting away with
the strawman error.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<82249364-f546-42f4-89db-89a9b55eeb88n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29721&group=comp.theory#29721

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:58ce:0:b0:2e1:ced3:5fe0 with SMTP id u14-20020ac858ce000000b002e1ced35fe0mr17472047qta.689.1649440471388;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7c86:0:b0:641:1a51:aa12 with SMTP id
x128-20020a257c86000000b006411a51aa12mr931802ybc.605.1649440471190; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 10:54:31 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <I7ydnTniz83p6M3_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>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com> <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com> <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com> <ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org> <7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com> <VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<dd108703-e6b9-49f7-ade3-18df78290ed1n@googlegroups.com> <Ku-dnbmvpPT58s3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<b928a14d-8798-426c-9481-94954e93c27cn@googlegroups.com> <942dnQMvqrF5783_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fc8e43-e4a2-491a-8043-6737705afb0en@googlegroups.com> <I7ydnTniz83p6M3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <82249364-f546-42f4-89db-89a9b55eeb88n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 17:54:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 84
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:54 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:48:43 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:37:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 12:32 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:22:52 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 12:13 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> >>>>>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
> >>>>>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
> >>>>>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
> >>>>>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
> >>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to abort to do so.
> >>>>>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
> >>>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
> >>>>>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
> >>>>>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
> >>>>>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You're mixing up your H's yet again. embedded_Hn / Hn cannot abort. embedded_Ha / Ha can.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ha / embedded_Ha rejects <Ĥa><Ĥa> but incorrectly as demonstrated by Hb simulating <Ĥa><Ĥa> to its final state of <Ĥa..qn>
> >>>>>
> >>>> It is the case that the input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H never halts
> >>>> therefore embedded_H would correctly reject its input.
> >>>>
> >>>> All of you Ha Ha crap is pure deceptive bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> Just the opposite. The fact that I use Ha and Hn catches you when you're being deceptive when you say "H" because it makes it clear exactly which H you're referring to.
> >>>
> >>> That's why you don't like talking about Ha and Hn because it exposes your errors. Which is why I'll continue to use them.
> >> Does the simulated input: <Ĥ> <Ĥ> to embedded_H reach its own simulated
> >> final state?
> >> YES OR NO any other answer is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.
> >
> > So you're saying that Hb accepting <Ha^><Ha^> doesn't matter because only Ha can be correct about its own simulation of <Ha^><Ha^>?
> >
> > Because if so then we need to have another conversation about Ha3 and <N><3>.
> That was not YES or NO, it was a deceitful attempt at getting away with
> the strawman error.

If the embedded_H in question is embedded_Hn, it cannot simulate its input to completion but because it cannot abort then it is unable to answer and is wrong by default.

If the embedded_H in question is embedded_Ha, and therefore the same as Ha, it is true that Ha cannot simulate <Ha^><Ha^> to its final state. However this is an incorrect simulation as demonstrated by the fact that Hb does simulate <Ha^><Ha^> to its final state. This means that Ha, and therefore embedded_Ha, is not correct to reject <Ha^><Ha^>.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<hOGdnZiVNKYg6s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29722&group=comp.theory#29722

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 12:58:21 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:58:20 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
<6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <hOGdnZiVNKYg6s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-F3AnpXcHoxQo02VARQuWgR/sBVgHDIJsZOxU8851KpeqTlsVc6ZIRZzQ1S9kAyRW+J5rzAN99cm9XvU!ihVYy6y/oPJztVBz/wv/TvCeMrxUU1+/xYgjV8IHRAUiFOR85I+eIXPrbI+hexEPM77BYtW1ot0s!WA==
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: 4932
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 17:58 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-08 11:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 12:20 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 1:06:21 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:46 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:28:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any
>>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>>>>>>>> and get away with the strawman error.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the
>>>>>>> argument
>>>>>>> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms
>>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>>> out that you "dog" is purring.
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.
>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_Hn is correct to reject this input, but it is unable to
>>>>> abort to do so.
>>>> Even if your ridiculously stupid idea that embedded_H cannot abort its
>>>> input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ is correct, the simple fact remains that Linz has still been
>>>> refuted: When embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejects its input it would
>>>> be correct, directly contradicting the Linz assertion that both
>>>> rejecting and accepting are the wrong answer.
>>>
>>> The Linz proof doesn't say that accept and reject are both wrong *for
>>> a given H*.
>>
>> My notation is different yet what Linz says is that when embedded_H is
>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both accept and reject are the wrong answer.
>
> You really need to reread the Linz proof since it doesn't make the above
> claim.

https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
The bottom half of the last page asserts that when Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
that whether the copy of H embedded within Ĥ accepts or rejects its
input it is incorrect either way.

Linz makes this difficult to understand because he simply erases key
elements of the definition of Ĥ:

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

alternatively

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<m5adnTn0-vXQ5M3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29723&group=comp.theory#29723

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:05:01 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:04:59 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <m5adnTn0-vXQ5M3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-c41GY3+URU06gfrpUJQSJGbgGWRST40Kcuq+JoR2auvoRuiG+wgk2fVpAhwf/R1lYEtoMGR8WFfnLUG!f6YdXJ7taKrxuMirL9eyd/xo6DH/1rl6/4ke+iyKfFVpAnz7GWAw55ympk8ubQfnwrcvusNjQZu9!5Q==
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: 3351
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:04 UTC

On 4/8/2022 12:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-08 11:02, olcott wrote:
>
>> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].
>
> You need to go back to the point where Dennis defined his Ha and Hn.
> They don't mean what you seem to think they mean.
>
> André
>

The fact that they do not mean embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is enough
to know that they must be utterly rejected out-of-hand.

That the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H is non-halting is the only thing
that is relevant to the correctness of embedded_H rejecting this input.

Everything else is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.

When I say "God damned" I mean in the sense of being eternally
incinerated in actual Hell.

Revelation 21:8 King James Version
....all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
and brimstone: which is the second death.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<90daa4f8-2a1d-4fab-a716-8dd53884e8a7n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29724&group=comp.theory#29724

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:6cc:b0:69b:dd1b:3235 with SMTP id 12-20020a05620a06cc00b0069bdd1b3235mr2545247qky.374.1649442411596;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:850b:0:b0:623:ae50:9d7d with SMTP id
w11-20020a25850b000000b00623ae509d7dmr14581946ybk.326.1649442411414; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 11:26:51 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <m5adnTn0-vXQ5M3_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>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me> <m5adnTn0-vXQ5M3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <90daa4f8-2a1d-4fab-a716-8dd53884e8a7n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 18:26:51 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 46
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:26 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 2:05:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 12:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> > On 2022-04-08 11:02, olcott wrote:
> >
> >> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].
> >
> > You need to go back to the point where Dennis defined his Ha and Hn.
> > They don't mean what you seem to think they mean.
> >
> > André
> >
> The fact that they do not mean embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is enough
> to know that they must be utterly rejected out-of-hand.

Ha and Hn more explicitly spell out which H is being referred to, as you often intentionally switch one you're talking about when you say H (sometimes in the same sentence).

>
> That the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H is non-halting is the only thing
> that is relevant to the correctness of embedded_H rejecting this input.

And by the same reasoning, that the input <N><5> to Ha3 is non-halting is the only thing that is relevant to the correctness of Ha3 rejecting this input.

Agreed?

>
> Everything else is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.
>
> When I say "God damned" I mean in the sense of being eternally
> incinerated in actual Hell.
>
> Revelation 21:8 King James Version
> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
> and brimstone: which is the second death.

Says the guy who hides behind the ambiguous "H" to dishonestly make his point.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29725&group=comp.theory#29725

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 19:29:20 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
<6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>
<hOGdnZiVNKYg6s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="ada6a80a29d158862aa79e3192f967b1";
logging-data="12985"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Fo7pR2E5dKbcVSPbw3Bw/UAqtOnZ+6vA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VMh7JXQSFdP+q6aU5V71RgGEQ8Y=
sha1:87fPf4gIbjtELFy+gW5Ahp7kppY=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.debc34c7ef7b74479614.20220408192920BST.87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:29 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> Linz makes this difficult to understand because he simply erases key
> elements of the definition of Ĥ:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

You have erased them. Linz specifies Ĥ properly based on what H is
supposed to do:

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.

You have spent an inordinate amount of time over the years copying out
those lines and dishonestly removing the key conditions. We all know
why.

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<OqSdnb-Wx_Ql4s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29726&group=comp.theory#29726

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:32:24 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:32:23 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c146edb7-aa55-4c05-8859-343fcc870e14n@googlegroups.com>
<N7qdnbRbV7YE983_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps9b$t87$2@dont-email.me>
<m5adnTn0-vXQ5M3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<90daa4f8-2a1d-4fab-a716-8dd53884e8a7n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <90daa4f8-2a1d-4fab-a716-8dd53884e8a7n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <OqSdnb-Wx_Ql4s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 55
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DPxPEtiJ5JEm3CZTW17o82lFuLPK6lRN1eDkchcVd14eAm3cksEsAIlPAA+YGvu79b3Awuid49lq2WP!ZngyuiGo6l4mdCgs9E8NaK26XIMdBUDyT1C8+1feukJes8h4mFXWbxYhLCDpfao9dGjSQQ1DwbQx!NQ==
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: 4217
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:32 UTC

On 4/8/2022 1:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 2:05:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 12:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-08 11:02, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> I asked about Ĥ0 and you answered with Ĥn which includes Ĥ[0...n].
>>>
>>> You need to go back to the point where Dennis defined his Ha and Hn.
>>> They don't mean what you seem to think they mean.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>> The fact that they do not mean embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is enough
>> to know that they must be utterly rejected out-of-hand.
>
> Ha and Hn more explicitly spell out which H is being referred to, as you often intentionally switch one you're talking about when you say H (sometimes in the same sentence).
>
>>
>> That the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H is non-halting is the only thing
>> that is relevant to the correctness of embedded_H rejecting this input.
>
> And by the same reasoning, that the input <N><5> to Ha3 is non-halting is the only thing that is relevant to the correctness of Ha3 rejecting this input.
>
> Agreed?
>

I have no idea what that gibberish means other then a deliberately
dishonest attempt at avoiding the point at hand:
embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

>
>>
>> Everything else is the God damned lie of a God damned liar.
>>
>> When I say "God damned" I mean in the sense of being eternally
>> incinerated in actual Hell.
>>
>> Revelation 21:8 King James Version
>> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
>> and brimstone: which is the second death.
>
> Says the guy who hides behind the ambiguous "H" to dishonestly make his point.
>

My H is not ambiguous:

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<iZOdnZmSB6slHs3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29727&group=comp.theory#29727

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:49:28 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:49:26 -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) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b8bf0bd7-3a1d-4d8a-bd75-342ad8d49becn@googlegroups.com>
<VbOdnZhgTpAb9s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<aae01e42-9022-46c7-b15d-a27a86f0ed3bn@googlegroups.com>
<6uOdnQl5KJnU7c3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2ps4p$t87$1@dont-email.me>
<hOGdnZiVNKYg6s3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87mtgva0ov.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <iZOdnZmSB6slHs3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 50
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Fu2GP4Nauml0l3FbhTRwSq595jqkiIbe121Ftd30dVpiS5+FGvqg2NwqAmBWhpt4ZXeQR/efPQ1bm/J!HXb5MtQ3gVxcU26WqL/yuFMHJ9W1PrpwWkDwaIKIaKz0fJMgJucrslVfRZq7mLLicJmcJZqYZZ7C!zg==
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: 4065
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:49 UTC

On 4/8/2022 1:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> Linz makes this difficult to understand because he simply erases key
>> elements of the definition of Ĥ:
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> You have erased them. Linz specifies Ĥ properly based on what H is
> supposed to do:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>
> You have spent an inordinate amount of time over the years copying out
> those lines and dishonestly removing the key conditions. We all know
> why.
>

<Linz:1990:320>
Now Ĥ is a Turing machine, so that it will have some description in
Σ*, say ŵ. This string, in addition to being the description of Ĥ can
also be used as input string. We can therefore legitimately ask what
would happen if Ĥ is applied to ŵ.

q0ŵ ⊢* Ĥ ∞
if Ĥ applied to ŵ halts, and

q0ŵ ⊢* Ĥy1qny2
if Ĥ applied to ŵ does not halt. This is clearly nonsense. The
contradiction tells us that...
</Linz:1990:320>

In other words the copy of H embedded within Ĥ is incorrect to either
reject or accept its input.

When I show that embedded_H correctly rejects its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ I have
correctly refuted Linz.

Because the simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H is non-halting when
embedded_H rejects this input as non-halting it is necessarily correct.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor