Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.


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 ]

<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30073&group=comp.theory#30073

 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)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:02:29 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <87fsmj2jx6.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>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cd5efecaf55482f711dc48f1c9b69dbc";
logging-data="19456"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/NB3/3qVPpFjnwrUwMZzk/qRiBeBamMEM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fZzjXcG5vJOB38y6+B5ze8g+6gI=
sha1:hQ1+YfhWrcDJ8kkiCEdAI7VbH44=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.5da5badd66f28a6e6a75.20220412020229BST.87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:02 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:

>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>> own state.
>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>
>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>> its own final state.
>>
>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>
> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.

You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
say and I'll stop quoting it.

> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.

Whether P(P) halts is what determines the correctness of H(P,P). You
don't get to say otherwise. It's not your specification.

--
Ben.

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

<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30074&group=comp.theory#30074

 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)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:17:10 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@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="cd5efecaf55482f711dc48f1c9b69dbc";
logging-data="19456"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187uoKCNSL0FEkBXq+GM7trV4bGXYX4Ifo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q9oY7C6d9nPtwj+Z4qJcl/569no=
sha1:QpYzZSfIrgHrZTPPLvjXPrcF0O4=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.e2090d46321accc7f950.20220412021710BST.87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:17 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/11/2022 6:52 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:41 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The above means this:
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>> That's funny! You really have no idea what this notation means, do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H is a simulating halt decider that has a full UTM embedded
>>>>>>> within it. As soon as it sees that the pure UTM simulation of its
>>>>>>> input would never reach the final state of this input it aborts this
>>>>>>> simulation and rejects this non-halting input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you had no business writing those two junk lines, did you? Or do you
>>>>>> really think that they are in some way compatible with that last
>>>>>> paragraph? Probably neither. I really think you see it much like
>>>>>> poetry. Meanings are supposed to be intuited from unusual, often
>>>>>> metaphorical, juxtapositions of symbols.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>> Still junk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>> own final state.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>> reach its own final state.
>> Still junk. Mixing embedded_H and H. Also H.qy is a final state so
>> this is not the hat construction form Linz. Also uses triger word
>> "would". What matters is what is the case, not what would be the case.
>> But, much like a poem, I can a feeling for what you might mean -- it's
>> the same old reject is correct because of what would happen if H (and
>> it's embedded copy) where not the TMs that actually are.
>> To see why you are clearly wrong, just say what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> transitions to, and what string must be passed to H for H to tell us
>> whether Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts or not.
>
> The fact that I do not express myself perfectly does not freaking mean
> that the key essence of all my ideas is not exactly correct.

Absolutely right. The reason the key essence of all my ideas is known
to be wrong is because you have, occasionally, been clear. Every time
you are clear, you have to spend months throwing junk wording and math
poems at the problem to try to get everyone to forget what you said.

This is why you absolutely must avoid the two simple questions I've been
asking. What could be more clear than to admit that H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
transitions to qn and ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the string that we must pass to H for
it to tell us whether or not Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ alts or not?

And of course you can't deny this either since that would be clear too!
Your current plan is to ignore these questions. That's probably your
best option.

You haven't always avoided these questions. Your "throw junk" method
has, in the past, given us *both* qn and qy for the one question:

"Furthermore I have repeated H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qn many
times."

"No nitwit H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy as I have told you many
times."

and a whole load of guff about the other question:

"the fact that a computation halts does not entail that it is a
halting computation"

"When it is construed as input to H then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes a halting
computation. When it is construed as input to Ĥ.qx then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ DOES
NOT encode a halting computation."

That's industrial strength equivocation!

> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.

The correct measure is determined by the definition of the halting
problem. You don't get to choose something else.

--
Ben.

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

<_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30075&group=comp.theory#30075

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:17:49 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:17:44 -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>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87fsmj2jx6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <_6adnSidzv2gTsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 86
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-xlzPGEroR4CVGrxSXdfZ8pANHeoqmL2g57DTqydFLb7dTLm5g9OeeoyvuIY5OUp5UrnS+l1n7pQE67l!63tFGagpxF/Wj7Leccc/d1lnwGUome8CBnN3/jAfzJFFjojjufd413K4ky2RRgk/TEbpNwR0+EGI
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: 5778
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:17 UTC

On 4/11/2022 8:02 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>>> own state.
>>>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>>
>>>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>>>> its own final state.
>>>
>>> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract
> typo: "so H(P,P) == false is wrong"
>>> these facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until
>>> then, you've told us that your H is wrong.
>>
>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>
> You can verify a thousand more irrelevant facts. The facts that matter
> are already known: that P(P) halts and that H(P,P) == false. Are you
> presenting any verified facts that corrects this mistake? If so, just
> say and I'll stop quoting it.
>

The sequence of configurations specified by P(P) intuitively seems like
it must be identical to the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P).
It turns out that intuition is incorrect.

It is the case that the input to H(P,P) never halts and it is the case
the P(P) halts because these are different computations they need not
have the same behavior.

When you actually examine the actual behavior of the correctly simulated
input to H(P,P) then we can see that it is an easily verified fact that
this input would never halt: AKA reach machine address [00000970].

_P()
[00000956](01) 55 push ebp
[00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
[0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)

The above keeps repeating until aborted

[00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
[0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
[0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]

--
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 ]

<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30076&group=comp.theory#30076

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:21:51 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:21:46 -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>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-73O/oE/4fFsMTcEH2ikrawwpcpU0U6HS8ADYhg8ABNvIRgYIZyIde9KBNt3uyiuQoLs5qXM3fbiHQtt!eqJ5YYWqlnlnXqvpwgQ4h+FYhXmK5H1XH16iuGxYRaml6ceyXFSkph+w9Hfzlk1cBHfvue3JxoyJ
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: 5131
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:21 UTC

On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/11/2022 6:52 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:41 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above means this:
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>> That's funny! You really have no idea what this notation means, do you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> embedded_H is a simulating halt decider that has a full UTM embedded
>>>>>>>> within it. As soon as it sees that the pure UTM simulation of its
>>>>>>>> input would never reach the final state of this input it aborts this
>>>>>>>> simulation and rejects this non-halting input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you had no business writing those two junk lines, did you? Or do you
>>>>>>> really think that they are in some way compatible with that last
>>>>>>> paragraph? Probably neither. I really think you see it much like
>>>>>>> poetry. Meanings are supposed to be intuited from unusual, often
>>>>>>> metaphorical, juxtapositions of symbols.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>> Still junk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>> own final state.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>> reach its own final state.
>>> Still junk. Mixing embedded_H and H. Also H.qy is a final state so
>>> this is not the hat construction form Linz. Also uses triger word
>>> "would". What matters is what is the case, not what would be the case.
>>> But, much like a poem, I can a feeling for what you might mean -- it's
>>> the same old reject is correct because of what would happen if H (and
>>> it's embedded copy) where not the TMs that actually are.
>>> To see why you are clearly wrong, just say what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> transitions to, and what string must be passed to H for H to tell us
>>> whether Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts or not.
>>
>> The fact that I do not express myself perfectly does not freaking mean
>> that the key essence of all my ideas is not exactly correct.
>
> Absolutely right. The reason the key essence of all my ideas is known
> to be wrong is because you have, occasionally, been clear.

I addressed this in my other reply to you.

I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that they
are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for debate.

--
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 ]

<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30077&group=comp.theory#30077

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:54a:0:b0:69a:f10c:f533 with SMTP id 71-20020a37054a000000b0069af10cf533mr1503379qkf.525.1649727413679;
Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:787:0:b0:69a:854:caae with SMTP id 129-20020a370787000000b0069a0854caaemr1602315qkh.20.1649727413537;
Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:36:53 -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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:36:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_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>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@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: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:36:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 91
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:36 UTC

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 4/11/2022 6:52 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:41 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The above means this:
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>> That's funny! You really have no idea what this notation means, do you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> embedded_H is a simulating halt decider that has a full UTM embedded
> >>>>>>>> within it. As soon as it sees that the pure UTM simulation of its
> >>>>>>>> input would never reach the final state of this input it aborts this
> >>>>>>>> simulation and rejects this non-halting input.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So you had no business writing those two junk lines, did you? Or do you
> >>>>>>> really think that they are in some way compatible with that last
> >>>>>>> paragraph? Probably neither. I really think you see it much like
> >>>>>>> poetry. Meanings are supposed to be intuited from unusual, often
> >>>>>>> metaphorical, juxtapositions of symbols.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>> Still junk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>> own final state.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>> reach its own final state.
> >>> Still junk. Mixing embedded_H and H. Also H.qy is a final state so
> >>> this is not the hat construction form Linz. Also uses triger word
> >>> "would". What matters is what is the case, not what would be the case..
> >>> But, much like a poem, I can a feeling for what you might mean -- it's
> >>> the same old reject is correct because of what would happen if H (and
> >>> it's embedded copy) where not the TMs that actually are.
> >>> To see why you are clearly wrong, just say what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>> transitions to, and what string must be passed to H for H to tell us
> >>> whether Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts or not.
> >>
> >> The fact that I do not express myself perfectly does not freaking mean
> >> that the key essence of all my ideas is not exactly correct.
> >
> > Absolutely right. The reason the key essence of all my ideas is known
> > to be wrong is because you have, occasionally, been clear.
> I addressed this in my other reply to you.
>
> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that they
> are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for debate.

Translation:

"People are finding so many holes in my logic on Turing machines that I don't know how to respond them all without admitting I'm wrong, so I'm going to change the way I talk about the problem in hopes I can hide my errors better."

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<tM45K.589667$mF2.253912@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30078&group=comp.theory#30078

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad>
<9872ba45-a089-4656-8556-61628ef29d37n@googlegroups.com>
<KKU4K.66097$Kdf.33908@fx96.iad>
<b92d9636-7d21-48e4-8c43-4b56113716ben@googlegroups.com>
<8JSdnbIbCIFDqsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FD25K.418246$iK66.247352@fx46.iad>
<_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
<mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<WP35K.508442$Rza5.83875@fx47.iad>
<9OSdndsebdPSV8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <9OSdndsebdPSV8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <tM45K.589667$mF2.253912@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:40:45 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10499
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:40 UTC

On 4/11/22 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/22 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:59:41 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 7:48 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:01:53 UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 12:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paths are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken notation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires learning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded in Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>>>>>>>> And the CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> will HALT if the copy
>>>>>>>>>>> of H that
>>>>>>>>>>> is embedded in H^ aborts its simulation and goes to H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and Halting is not the Non-Halting that an H that goes
>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qn is
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it is self-evident that H is wrong, since the input
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do
>>>>>>>>>>> what it said it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Note, self-evident can be tricky or you can persuade yourself
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> something that is wrong is actually true. That gives rise to
>>>>>>>>>>> the errors
>>>>>>>>>>> like the self-evident truth the Achilles can't pass the
>>>>>>>>>>> Tortoise that
>>>>>>>>>>> Zeno was able to show 'self-evidently'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that Zeno was fully aware that Achilles would overtake
>>>>>>>>>> the tortoise.
>>>>>>>>>> The Greeks staged regular athletics competitions, and he must
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> observed a faster runner overhaul a slower one.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, he saw 'reality' but he also saw the 'self-evident' proof
>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>> couldn't happen!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus PROVING that 'self-evident' isn't actually a valid form of
>>>>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It also shows that PO doesn't actually understand what
>>>>>>>>> epistemology
>>>>>>>>> means with that statement, which isn't strange since he doesn't
>>>>>>>>> understand a lot of things that are clearly stated because he
>>>>>>>>> filters
>>>>>>>>> reality through his POOP colored glasses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whilst I don't know much about Zeno's thought except the basics, he
>>>>>>>> was probably trying to work out the nature of a mathematical proof.
>>>>>>>> The Greeks had started to develop mathematical proofs, but they
>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>> fully understand what they were. So a "proof" of a manifest
>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>> was of interest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's actually harder than it first appears to say what
>>>>>>>> constitutes a proof.
>>>>>>>> So whilst individual proofs are taught at high school level,
>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>> are not usually taught how to set out a proof formally. And of
>>>>>>>> course they
>>>>>>>> are not expected to develop their own proofs. That's why someone
>>>>>>>> without a maths degree can struggle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A proof is merely the set of necessary consequences derived from
>>>>>>> true premises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and in a FORMAL Logic, like Mathematics, the ONLY things
>>>>>> that can be taken as 'True Premises' are the defined AXIOMS and
>>>>>> DEFINITIONS, and those things that can be proven from them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes and it is the same situation when we formalize natural language
>>>>> semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And thus your 'from the meaning of the words' are not true, as the
>>>> MEANING of the words 'halting' are ONLY based on the behavior of the
>>>> machine the input represents,
>>>
>>> In this you are flatly incorrect.
>>>
>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL SIMULATED INPUT is BY
>> DEFINITON the results of applying an ACTUAL UTM to that input which
>> matches the behavior of the machine it represents.
>
> The SHD applies an actual UTM to its input until it has complete proof
> that this simulation would never end.
>


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

<7P45K.589668$mF2.40541@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30079&group=comp.theory#30079

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
deceitful bastard ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me> <__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me> <5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me> <TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>
<3YydnT_3g8k7pMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t31fjh$lg8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<-cydncFUiYUM38n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<Qo35K.572397$7F2.243252@fx12.iad>
<H8-dnVCrq8QeXsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<vL35K.572399$7F2.191155@fx12.iad>
<9OSdndgebdPUVMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <9OSdndgebdPUVMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <7P45K.589668$mF2.40541@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:43:36 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4618
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:43 UTC

On 4/11/22 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/22 8:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/22 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:56 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Demented LIAR Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:56:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not quite true. Whenever somenthing is claimed there is a
>>>>>>>> possibility of disagreement. Every definition contains a claim: it
>>>>>>>> claims that something is defined. But sometimes there is a mistake
>>>>>>>> in a definition so that in reality nothing is defined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In BASIC let X = 5,
>>>>>>> one is not free to disagree that X has the value of 5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not what you are doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you are doing is similar to claim "Let p be the greatest
>>>>>> prime number" and then claim that one is not free to disagree
>>>>>> that p exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, just as it is self-evident that this behavior for <H^> <H^>
>>>> is HALTING if H rejects it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>>
>>> _P()
>>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax
>>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx
>>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>>
>>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>>
>> Then you aren't running the right test.
>>
>> The CORRECT SIMULATION is one that never aborts
>
> The question is: Would the correct simulation of the input ever reach
> machine address [00000970] ???
>

And, depending on you H the answer is either Yes, or it doesn't matter
because H never gave the answer that is was non-halting.

If you are correct that the correct simulation really doesn't return at
that point, then you have just proved that you H fails to answer the
question and thus fails to be a decider.

So which way are you wrong?

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

<x_45K.713082$oF2.297896@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30080&group=comp.theory#30080

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <x_45K.713082$oF2.297896@fx10.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:55:46 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2493
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 01:55 UTC

On 4/11/22 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that they
> are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for debate.
>

And the problem with your program H, is that the way you describe it, it
isn't a compuation, and thus doesn't represent a Turing Macnine, and
thus can't be used to counter a proof about Turing Machines.

I guess this is your white flag of surrender, you have given up the
meager terretory you thought you had claimed and retreating back into
your world of irrelevence.

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

<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30081&group=comp.theory#30081

 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!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:03:16 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:03:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
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>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 91
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QmFaP3b9jnbdtA1aDU0Oxi0jCKvUipk3IwiSm3vFlsbC3eBWLRAb1CCRMOXd1JnVz31xlLsl2bzyUNf!sSdOVimHpGJg/nrbv+/aiuF1diNhh61Ep6bVBODLX/AhXsTdN04Lvc3vAqaHTFvtj8DQjh6E/cTB
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: 6373
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:03 UTC

On 4/11/2022 8:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:52 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:41 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above means this:
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>> That's funny! You really have no idea what this notation means, do you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is a simulating halt decider that has a full UTM embedded
>>>>>>>>>> within it. As soon as it sees that the pure UTM simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>> input would never reach the final state of this input it aborts this
>>>>>>>>>> simulation and rejects this non-halting input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you had no business writing those two junk lines, did you? Or do you
>>>>>>>>> really think that they are in some way compatible with that last
>>>>>>>>> paragraph? Probably neither. I really think you see it much like
>>>>>>>>> poetry. Meanings are supposed to be intuited from unusual, often
>>>>>>>>> metaphorical, juxtapositions of symbols.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>> Still junk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>> Still junk. Mixing embedded_H and H. Also H.qy is a final state so
>>>>> this is not the hat construction form Linz. Also uses triger word
>>>>> "would". What matters is what is the case, not what would be the case.
>>>>> But, much like a poem, I can a feeling for what you might mean -- it's
>>>>> the same old reject is correct because of what would happen if H (and
>>>>> it's embedded copy) where not the TMs that actually are.
>>>>> To see why you are clearly wrong, just say what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> transitions to, and what string must be passed to H for H to tell us
>>>>> whether Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts or not.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that I do not express myself perfectly does not freaking mean
>>>> that the key essence of all my ideas is not exactly correct.
>>>
>>> Absolutely right. The reason the key essence of all my ideas is known
>>> to be wrong is because you have, occasionally, been clear.
>> I addressed this in my other reply to you.
>>
>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that they
>> are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for debate.
>
> Translation:
>
> "People are finding so many holes in my logic on Turing machines

There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn

The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
at the second wild card state transition shown above:
https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

With H(P,P) we see exactly what the x86 emulator sees and both what H
should do and why it does it.

Pages 4-5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

> that I don't know how to respond them all without admitting I'm wrong, so I'm going to change the way I talk about the problem in hopes I can hide my errors better."

--
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) [ self-evident truth ]

<F-OdnZTMFZ_zQ8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30082&group=comp.theory#30082

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:05:34 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:05:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad>
<9872ba45-a089-4656-8556-61628ef29d37n@googlegroups.com>
<KKU4K.66097$Kdf.33908@fx96.iad>
<b92d9636-7d21-48e4-8c43-4b56113716ben@googlegroups.com>
<8JSdnbIbCIFDqsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FD25K.418246$iK66.247352@fx46.iad>
<_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
<mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<WP35K.508442$Rza5.83875@fx47.iad>
<9OSdndsebdPSV8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tM45K.589667$mF2.253912@fx11.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tM45K.589667$mF2.253912@fx11.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <F-OdnZTMFZ_zQ8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 219
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-OBHqiKT9NfqKj+xD7Tvmbr6qJ2HlxMw4jq9+UPcV/FnYBzNKec0nualz7gZ0U6qxTHupVIRRNKKTlne!gezTmxKISuDa5qagJ/s/hdyD/uC9iplY1zYVV2heCD0UrNqsikEQ2z4/zcTzYFoFG6w6iIG8pPXC
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: 11245
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:05 UTC

On 4/11/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/11/22 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/11/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/22 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:59:41 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 7:48 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:01:53 UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 12:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paths are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the notation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken notation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overrides all other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires learning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded in Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And the CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> will HALT if the
>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is embedded in H^ aborts its simulation and goes to H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and Halting is not the Non-Halting that an H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn is
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it is self-evident that H is wrong, since the input
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do
>>>>>>>>>>>> what it said it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, self-evident can be tricky or you can persuade
>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself that
>>>>>>>>>>>> something that is wrong is actually true. That gives rise to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the errors
>>>>>>>>>>>> like the self-evident truth the Achilles can't pass the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tortoise that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Zeno was able to show 'self-evidently'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Except that Zeno was fully aware that Achilles would overtake
>>>>>>>>>>> the tortoise.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Greeks staged regular athletics competitions, and he must
>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>> observed a faster runner overhaul a slower one.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he saw 'reality' but he also saw the 'self-evident' proof
>>>>>>>>>> that this
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't happen!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus PROVING that 'self-evident' isn't actually a valid form
>>>>>>>>>> of argument.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It also shows that PO doesn't actually understand what
>>>>>>>>>> epistemology
>>>>>>>>>> means with that statement, which isn't strange since he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> understand a lot of things that are clearly stated because he
>>>>>>>>>> filters
>>>>>>>>>> reality through his POOP colored glasses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whilst I don't know much about Zeno's thought except the
>>>>>>>>> basics, he
>>>>>>>>> was probably trying to work out the nature of a mathematical
>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>> The Greeks had started to develop mathematical proofs, but they
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>> fully understand what they were. So a "proof" of a manifest
>>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>>> was of interest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's actually harder than it first appears to say what
>>>>>>>>> constitutes a proof.
>>>>>>>>> So whilst individual proofs are taught at high school level,
>>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>>> are not usually taught how to set out a proof formally. And of
>>>>>>>>> course they
>>>>>>>>> are not expected to develop their own proofs. That's why someone
>>>>>>>>> without a maths degree can struggle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A proof is merely the set of necessary consequences derived from
>>>>>>>> true premises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and in a FORMAL Logic, like Mathematics, the ONLY things
>>>>>>> that can be taken as 'True Premises' are the defined AXIOMS and
>>>>>>> DEFINITIONS, and those things that can be proven from them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes and it is the same situation when we formalize natural
>>>>>> language semantics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus your 'from the meaning of the words' are not true, as the
>>>>> MEANING of the words 'halting' are ONLY based on the behavior of
>>>>> the machine the input represents,
>>>>
>>>> In this you are flatly incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL SIMULATED INPUT is BY
>>> DEFINITON the results of applying an ACTUAL UTM to that input which
>>> matches the behavior of the machine it represents.
>>
>> The SHD applies an actual UTM to its input until it has complete proof
>> that this simulation would never end.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't, because by DEFINITION, if it is a UTM, it doesn't abort
> its simulation, thus your SHD would never get control back to abort.


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

<t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30083&group=comp.theory#30083

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:21:30 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:21:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="beec9bbee9bdbd5b50188a314af54e6b";
logging-data="28918"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vU6xZaVw9YR1qAc+S1CXs"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7IyjW9WtkuBB1+4rme7ou4dV1RQ=
In-Reply-To: <F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:21 UTC

On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:

> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf

That's *not* what this notation means.

What you write above isn't what Linz states, because Linz knows that
without any conditions specified the above is nonsense. [You are really,
REALLY, determined to keep making this error despite the fact that every
time you make it it VERY clearly shows you have no idea what this
notation means].

This notation is how one provides a *specification* for a TM, not how
one defines a TM.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn otherwise

The specification doesn't define how a TM *works*, it describes what a
particular TM *does*. Any Turing Machine which accepts a string ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts and rejects all other strings satisfies the above
specification. Any TM which does not fails to satisfy the above
specification.

If you want to actually *define* a TM which satisfies the above
specification, then you need to fill out what occurs where ⊢* appears.
The specification and the definition/implementation of a TM are entirely
different things.

Providing a specification for a TM does not guarantee that it is
possible to actually create such a TM. It identifies only what the
desired relationship between the initial tape contents and the final result.

And for halt deciders the relationship is as defined above. ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
accepted ONLY IF Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.

Yes, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not an input to the decider. But if you can't
find a way to encode TMs such that you can map the input string to
accept/reject based on this thing which is not an input, that only means
the specification cannot be met, not that there is a flaw with the
specification because it refers to something other than its input.

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 ]

<su55K.349388$Gojc.28556@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30084&group=comp.theory#30084

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <su55K.349388$Gojc.28556@fx99.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:29:48 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7061
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:29 UTC

On 4/11/22 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 8:36 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 8:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:52 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:41 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above means this:
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>> That's funny! You really have no idea what this notation
>>>>>>>>>> means, do you?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is a simulating halt decider that has a full UTM
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded
>>>>>>>>>>> within it. As soon as it sees that the pure UTM simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>> input would never reach the final state of this input it
>>>>>>>>>>> aborts this
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and rejects this non-halting input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you had no business writing those two junk lines, did you?
>>>>>>>>>> Or do you
>>>>>>>>>> really think that they are in some way compatible with that last
>>>>>>>>>> paragraph? Probably neither. I really think you see it much like
>>>>>>>>>> poetry. Meanings are supposed to be intuited from unusual, often
>>>>>>>>>> metaphorical, juxtapositions of symbols.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>> Still junk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would
>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>> own final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>> Still junk. Mixing embedded_H and H. Also H.qy is a final state so
>>>>>> this is not the hat construction form Linz. Also uses triger word
>>>>>> "would". What matters is what is the case, not what would be the
>>>>>> case.
>>>>>> But, much like a poem, I can a feeling for what you might mean --
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> the same old reject is correct because of what would happen if H (and
>>>>>> it's embedded copy) where not the TMs that actually are.
>>>>>> To see why you are clearly wrong, just say what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> transitions to, and what string must be passed to H for H to tell us
>>>>>> whether Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that I do not express myself perfectly does not freaking mean
>>>>> that the key essence of all my ideas is not exactly correct.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely right. The reason the key essence of all my ideas is known
>>>> to be wrong is because you have, occasionally, been clear.
>>> I addressed this in my other reply to you.
>>>
>>> I am only talking about H(P,P) now because if someone imagines that it
>>> does differently that it does an actual execution trace proves that they
>>> are incorrect as a matter of objective fact with zero room for debate.
>>
>> Translation:
>>
>> "People are finding so many holes in my logic on Turing machines
>
> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*

Nope, he says the designer of the Halt Decider is allowed to do what
ever they want there, i.e. the proof holds for ANY Halt Decider that
claims to meet the requirements.

You just don't seem to understand what that meens.

Now, YOU seem to want to put magic there, but that fails to meet the
requirement that H needs to be a Turing Machine.

(Note, Linz doesn't say 'H' at that point, but just labels the state as
H^q0 and describes that this state is the starting state of H' which was
H with the Qy state made non-terminal, so it is also the starting state
of H.

> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>
> With H(P,P) we see exactly what the x86 emulator sees and both what H
> should do and why it does it.

Right, just like if you had actually DESIGNED your Turing Machine H, you
could have replaced that ⊢* with the transition diagram of it.

Since you don't understand how to actually DO that, it just shows that
you don't understand what you are saying about Turing Machines.

>
> Pages 4-5
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
>
>> that I don't know how to respond them all without admitting I'm wrong,
>> so I'm going to change the way I talk about the problem in hopes I can
>> hide my errors better."
>
>

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

<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30085&group=comp.theory#30085

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:32:06 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:32:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad> <8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 30
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-YxhG8HF/DUeE9deu3vxmQMjJa+Oqz3MWFC1T3rIY3htA7Zhv57jZ9fj35Wb3FfKKJlMgxnOsAbVTuXW!3XkjvZfpyNMrAh4dnvpH2dJ2fIdmy0z5Kd4/JSgVleNNIu9RYYV6ON7VDSRnnmqyYcLlFgtC6NZx
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: 3144
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:32 UTC

On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>
>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>
>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>
> That's *not* what this notation means.
>

Page 237
The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number of
moves.

Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.

The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".

--
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) [ self-evident truth ]

<oy55K.67294$Kdf.24321@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30086&group=comp.theory#30086

 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!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad>
<9872ba45-a089-4656-8556-61628ef29d37n@googlegroups.com>
<KKU4K.66097$Kdf.33908@fx96.iad>
<b92d9636-7d21-48e4-8c43-4b56113716ben@googlegroups.com>
<8JSdnbIbCIFDqsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FD25K.418246$iK66.247352@fx46.iad>
<_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
<mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<WP35K.508442$Rza5.83875@fx47.iad>
<9OSdndsebdPSV8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tM45K.589667$mF2.253912@fx11.iad>
<F-OdnZTMFZ_zQ8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <F-OdnZTMFZ_zQ8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 227
Message-ID: <oy55K.67294$Kdf.24321@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:34:01 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 11531
X-Original-Bytes: 11397
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:34 UTC

On 4/11/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/11/22 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/11/22 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/22 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 7:14 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:59:41 UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 7:48 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 12:01:53 UTC+1,
>>>>>>>>>>>> richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/11/22 12:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclic paths are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the notation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone points
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken notation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overrides all other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> progress.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requires learning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded in Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> will HALT if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is embedded in H^ aborts its simulation and goes to H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and Halting is not the Non-Halting that an H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, it is self-evident that H is wrong, since the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it said it does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, self-evident can be tricky or you can persuade
>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that is wrong is actually true. That gives rise
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the errors
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the self-evident truth the Achilles can't pass the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tortoise that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zeno was able to show 'self-evidently'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that Zeno was fully aware that Achilles would
>>>>>>>>>>>> overtake the tortoise.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Greeks staged regular athletics competitions, and he
>>>>>>>>>>>> must have
>>>>>>>>>>>> observed a faster runner overhaul a slower one.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, he saw 'reality' but he also saw the 'self-evident'
>>>>>>>>>>> proof that this
>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't happen!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus PROVING that 'self-evident' isn't actually a valid form
>>>>>>>>>>> of argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It also shows that PO doesn't actually understand what
>>>>>>>>>>> epistemology
>>>>>>>>>>> means with that statement, which isn't strange since he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> understand a lot of things that are clearly stated because he
>>>>>>>>>>> filters
>>>>>>>>>>> reality through his POOP colored glasses.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Whilst I don't know much about Zeno's thought except the
>>>>>>>>>> basics, he
>>>>>>>>>> was probably trying to work out the nature of a mathematical
>>>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>>> The Greeks had started to develop mathematical proofs, but
>>>>>>>>>> they didn't
>>>>>>>>>> fully understand what they were. So a "proof" of a manifest
>>>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>>>> was of interest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's actually harder than it first appears to say what
>>>>>>>>>> constitutes a proof.
>>>>>>>>>> So whilst individual proofs are taught at high school level,
>>>>>>>>>> children
>>>>>>>>>> are not usually taught how to set out a proof formally. And of
>>>>>>>>>> course they
>>>>>>>>>> are not expected to develop their own proofs. That's why someone
>>>>>>>>>> without a maths degree can struggle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A proof is merely the set of necessary consequences derived
>>>>>>>>> from true premises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, and in a FORMAL Logic, like Mathematics, the ONLY things
>>>>>>>> that can be taken as 'True Premises' are the defined AXIOMS and
>>>>>>>> DEFINITIONS, and those things that can be proven from them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes and it is the same situation when we formalize natural
>>>>>>> language semantics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus your 'from the meaning of the words' are not true, as the
>>>>>> MEANING of the words 'halting' are ONLY based on the behavior of
>>>>>> the machine the input represents,
>>>>>
>>>>> In this you are flatly incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the ACTUAL SIMULATED INPUT is BY
>>>> DEFINITON the results of applying an ACTUAL UTM to that input which
>>>> matches the behavior of the machine it represents.
>>>
>>> The SHD applies an actual UTM to its input until it has complete
>>> proof that this simulation would never end.
>>>
>>
>> No, it doesn't, because by DEFINITION, if it is a UTM, it doesn't
>> abort its simulation, thus your SHD would never get control back to
>> abort.
>
> On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle
> detector.
> > You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a
> "modified
> > UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is
> reasonable.
> > And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the
> infinite cycle
> > detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset
> of non-
> > halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it
> can't
> > be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat
> construct
> > will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
> >
>


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

<FE55K.213134$OT%7.82210@fx07.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30087&group=comp.theory#30087

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx07.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <FE55K.213134$OT%7.82210@fx07.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:40:41 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3285
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:40 UTC

On 4/11/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>
>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>
>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>
>
> Page 237
> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number of
> moves.
>
> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>
> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>

Nope, that isn't what it said (no 'magic')

You just don't understand the meaning of the words do you.

At best, it means an exercise left for the reader.

He describes what each of those actually represent.

The first is the 'standard' code for duplicating the input.

The second is whatever code is claimed to be needed to make a Halt Decider.

If he DOES mean magic, then he has proved that even 'Magic' Machines
can't get the answer right.

FAIL.

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

<K8adne0_Fo5Besn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30088&group=comp.theory#30088

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:45:48 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:45:43 -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>
<IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad> <8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FE55K.213134$OT%7.82210@fx07.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <FE55K.213134$OT%7.82210@fx07.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <K8adne0_Fo5Besn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2xGEr1bBAucQdYGJWTrBKVhiYdb4rSAR5HLPDGOVmSrV/EgT4UTfOE0HNKKa0LxC23Qc7uOD8JJE8jh!LFVfs6J/Bt5KwFSOqTzUwWop3Tt1P3fIy4iXPPfClJkxq4DS4nBe8Bb1Fzw8D+PIxnVsqekw7IMw
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: 3347
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:45 UTC

On 4/11/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/11/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>
>>
>> Page 237
>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number of
>> moves.
>>
>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>>
>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".

The other name for "magic happens here" is hand waving.

--
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 ]

<t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30089&group=comp.theory#30089

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:55:01 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:55:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="beec9bbee9bdbd5b50188a314af54e6b";
logging-data="8031"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fmkAiwqU4VJzmzm40lyGe"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uAAlySF7hpTwrTO+eCVqR2sJNI8=
In-Reply-To: <y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:55 UTC

On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>
>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>
>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>
>
> Page 237
> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number of
> moves.

Yes, I am aware of that.

> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.

There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something which you
simply did not understand.

> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".

Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.

The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is required to
do rather than HOW it does that. This means only the initial tape
contents and the final result must be indicated. Everything else is
denoted by ⊢* because those details are part of the HOW rather than part
of the specification. There are *many* different ways to implement a
given TM (assuming it is possible at all), and the ⊢* denotes *any* of
those possible implementations.

Do you understand the difference between a specification and a
definition/implementation?

A C function prototype is similar (not identical) to a specification and
it also omits the implementational details. That hardly means that

int foo(int x); // compute the square of x

is saying 'magic occurs inside foo()".

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 ]

<DW55K.165777$8V_7.123337@fx04.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30090&group=comp.theory#30090

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FE55K.213134$OT%7.82210@fx07.iad>
<K8adne0_Fo5Besn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <K8adne0_Fo5Besn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <DW55K.165777$8V_7.123337@fx04.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:59:51 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3253
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:59 UTC

On 4/11/22 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/11/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>
>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Page 237
>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number
>>> of moves.
>>>
>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>>>
>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>
> The other name for "magic happens here" is hand waving.
>

Nope. You are just showing that you really don't know what he is talking
about.

Not worth explaining it anymore because you still won't understand, and
you refuse to learn.

We'll just let you prove to the world how ignorant you are.

FAIL.

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

<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30091&group=comp.theory#30091

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:00:01 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 21:59:57 -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>
<IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad> <8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 44
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-G072awLYbcIgaWBKg+4O5nQaJnpD6poyhOAwkkbgGvBb27LvnWcqYdkeDPVPHgOojt57Qd1R7BDEAQY!gJK9AGCmEC11c/24xtT522h2DmhtrV6PXSkn7aplDO/1KkDTtIrRiv+Se+EtONuEXQUP7XGm5EaC
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: 3631
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 02:59 UTC

On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>
>>
>> Page 237
>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number of
>> moves.
>
> Yes, I am aware of that.
>
>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>
> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something which you
> simply did not understand.
>
>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>
> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>
> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is required to
> do rather than HOW it does that.

That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).

--
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 ]

<deGdnT9nWMDrccn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30092&group=comp.theory#30092

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:05:26 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:05:21 -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>
<IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad> <8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <deGdnT9nWMDrccn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-OU3G9BBrf/+pXYQWpTgcGDoVrzfN0Tj8EBt/XBT61vPGHJqtd69Jhd4U3Pi4QomA13opKfOlMntFUjZ!dtRcmJpU+yIU5UV2mrqBX38PFDv5fpS5ZoBQB1vN2HJzo0Wz0nI6pRGlKvCyfihHjr23He3yOBa0
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: 4569
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 03:05 UTC

On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>
>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>
>>
>> Page 237
>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number of
>> moves.
>
> Yes, I am aware of that.
>
>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>
> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something which you
> simply did not understand.
>
>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>
> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>
> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is required to
> do rather than HOW it does that.

That is why I am switching back to H(P,P)

The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state.

_P()
[00000956](01) 55 push ebp
[00000957](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000959](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[0000095c](01) 50 push eax // push P
[0000095d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000960](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[00000961](05) e8c0feffff call 00000826 // call H(P,P)
The above keeps repeating until aborted

[00000966](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000969](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[0000096b](02) 7402 jz 0000096f
[0000096d](02) ebfe jmp 0000096d
[0000096f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000970](01) c3 ret // final state.
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]

Pages 4-5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2

--
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 ]

<t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30093&group=comp.theory#30093

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:12:22 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 04:12:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="beec9bbee9bdbd5b50188a314af54e6b";
logging-data="667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vPu5Yq2T74nxrXDnE03Py"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iB6ZGUnlO0NmvYGS5oMc5+WuAE4=
In-Reply-To: <N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 04:12 UTC

On 2022-04-11 20:59, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>
>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Page 237
>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number
>>> of moves.
>>
>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>
>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>>
>> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something which you
>> simply did not understand.
>>
>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>>
>> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>>
>> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is required to
>> do rather than HOW it does that.
>
> That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).

But if you don't even know *how* to read a specification (which based on
your earlier post you clearly do not), then how can you possibly show
that your H and P meet the relevant specification?

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 ]

<YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30094&group=comp.theory#30094

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:15:46 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:15:41 -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>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 51
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JBlrTZvCiiik0A5BY6F+3xx9O4wUhlPzqBgApkLWevwS93qCUkdKDnQX+HWfbiA4rs6yb4AhvYmZ/kt!QL+sIklgUfh+NWrzl0rXTkR8NpbjuogWF5RgHweeIYpSg07WnG9O9BBOowR/99W4XnRZjP5F8Djn
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: 3976
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 04:15 UTC

On 4/11/2022 11:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-11 20:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Page 237
>>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number
>>>> of moves.
>>>
>>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>>
>>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>>>
>>> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something which you
>>> simply did not understand.
>>>
>>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>>>
>>> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>>>
>>> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is required
>>> to do rather than HOW it does that.
>>
>> That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).
>
> But if you don't even know *how* to read a specification

Which is untrue, yet now we have complete x86 source-code, not merely
⊢* AKA some-thing-or-other-goes-here.

--
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 ]

<t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30095&group=comp.theory#30095

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 22:29:57 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
<YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 04:29:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="beec9bbee9bdbd5b50188a314af54e6b";
logging-data="7217"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18pibbNrxJ9fC7PrkGU9DPd"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yII7Dh4dIPmpjLRRwOgQ7tPmmg8=
In-Reply-To: <YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 04:29 UTC

On 2022-04-11 22:15, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 11:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Page 237
>>>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary number
>>>>> of moves.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>>>
>>>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>>>>
>>>> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something which
>>>> you simply did not understand.
>>>>
>>>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>>>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>>>>
>>>> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is required
>>>> to do rather than HOW it does that.
>>>
>>> That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).
>>
>> But if you don't even know *how* to read a specification
>
> Which is untrue, yet now we have complete x86 source-code, not merely ⊢*
> AKA some-thing-or-other-goes-here.

But that is *not* what it means. This specification:

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn otherwise

refers to the *class* of Turing Machines (which might be the empty
class) which, given an initial tape contents of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ultimately
transition to H.qy if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts and H.qn otherwise.

This is no different from the use of wildcards in strings, where "r*s"
refers to the *class* of strings which being with "r" and end in "s".

In the above context, ⊢* doesn't mean 'something or other'. It means
'any sequence of transitions which satisfies the conditions which follow
(i.e. which leads to H.qy if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts and H.qn otherwise).

Maybe in your garbage specifications where you omit the conditions it
means 'something or other', but that's not what it means in actual
specifications.

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 ]

<XvGdncOXFMTdnMj_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30096&group=comp.theory#30096

 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:34:08 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:34:03 -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>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
<YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XvGdncOXFMTdnMj_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 60
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EJKjsMmX+bA6gcUJ+TGhWbkigMMkrEORUdvgkGn4/rRGdVEfYCtLyp27j+8R9vnO53Ip+dEly4nnRK5!SI0HajU3i0S984kmciFxfTQx6Vlw0iVzNkEcjm0JEWRZHrSGfVQD1jiqxKDSbICTCTD27yiXYqx4
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: 4380
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 04:34 UTC

On 4/11/2022 11:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-11 22:15, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 11:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/11/2022 9:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-04-11 20:03, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is an inherent hole the the logic specified by Linz
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Linz text basically says "magic happens here" ⊢*
>>>>>>>> at the second wild card state transition shown above:
>>>>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's *not* what this notation means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Page 237
>>>>>> The symbols ⊢* and ⊢+ have the usual meaning of an arbitrary
>>>>>> number of moves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I am aware of that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Once I hit the first mistake I comment and then ignore the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a big difference between a "mistake" and something which
>>>>> you simply did not understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The second ⊢* in Ĥ means an arbitrary number of (unspecified) moves
>>>>>> Thus ⊢* really is the conventional notion of "magic happens here".
>>>>>
>>>>> Clearly, you didn't even read what I wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose of a specification is to indicate WHAT a TM is required
>>>>> to do rather than HOW it does that.
>>>>
>>>> That is why I am switching back to H(P,P).
>>>
>>> But if you don't even know *how* to read a specification
>>
>> Which is untrue, yet now we have complete x86 source-code, not merely
>> ⊢* AKA some-thing-or-other-goes-here.
>
> But that is *not* what it means. This specification:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

The claim is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets 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 ]

<87v8ve1syx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30099&group=comp.theory#30099

 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)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 11:44:38 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <87v8ve1syx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cr2j8p.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<7_OdnfY0NISyScn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2af89895-cf33-4b76-8277-a6c5735974c2n@googlegroups.com>
<F-OdnZXMFZ95QMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32nnd$s7m$1@dont-email.me>
<y9OdnVNUf587ecn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32pm7$7qv$1@dont-email.me>
<N-2dnROcGKCvdsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t32u76$kr$1@dont-email.me>
<YcKdnXTQLrFvYcn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32v87$71h$1@dont-email.me>
<XvGdncOXFMTdnMj_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@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="cd5efecaf55482f711dc48f1c9b69dbc";
logging-data="27294"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VRn5GoxsSrPSbiSsw+CMf9ghPBBk+lSw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rOEyei2t8m+QjQcQYjH0aeVdTL4=
sha1:hXH+Yrkd78aIa5MDTjPYS8PDKmM=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.076b8225a29be05c5c66.20220412114438BST.87v8ve1syx.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 10:44 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> The claim is that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the wrong answer.

You (PO) are a lost cause because you are too arrogant to try to learn
what this notation means (I did try), but I am replying because I know
from teaching this that it's not uncommon to image that Linz (or
whoever) is saying that H "gets the answer wrong" (the good students
know that Ĥ isn't answering any question) and I want to show how I
address this in class.

Imagine a "next number" TM called S (for successor):

S.0 <x> ⊦* S.h <y>

Here, <x> is the encoding of a number x, and S.h is the one and only
halting state (I've dropped the pointless q on the state names). Of
course I haven't finished the specification until I give all the
details:

Let <x> be the usual binary representation of the natural number x so
that

S.0 <x> ⊦* S.h <y>

with y > x and ~exist(n in N){ n > x and n < y }. I.e. y is the next
number after x in the usual order.

All well and good and I might even ask the students to write this TM.
Now consider a small change. We specify another TM:

Let <x> be the usual binary representation of a rational in (0,1) so
that

T.0 <x> ⊦* T.h <y>

with y > x and ~exist(q in Q){ q > x and q < y }.

I don't get the students to write this TM. Why? Because it is obvious
that no such TM exists. The specification of T can't be met. The
specification does not say that T "gets the answer wrong" -- it says
that no such T can exist. Whenever you see a specification that looks
like it's saying that the specified TM gets the answer wrong, it's just
saying that no TM meets that specification.

To PO: I advise you not to address the content of this post. It is not
really aimed at you and it's a distraction from your life's work. If
you feel like you must reply, why not just copy and paste some of your
usual stuff?

--
Ben.

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor