Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

SubjectAuthor
* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Richard Damon
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Richard Damon
+* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaBen Bacarisse
|`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
| +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Richard Damon
| `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaBen Bacarisse
|  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|   +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Richard Damon
|   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaBen Bacarisse
|    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaBen Bacarisse
|     |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Dennis Bush
|     | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Dennis Bush
|     | |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Dennis Bush
|     | |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Dennis Bush
|     | |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Dennis Bush
|     | |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | |         `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Dennis Bush
|     | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaBen Bacarisse
|     | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaBen Bacarisse
|     | |  `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
|     | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Richard Damon
|     `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Richard Damon
`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaMikko
 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
  +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [Richard Damon
  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaMikko
   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott
    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's MistaMikko
     `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [olcott

Pages:12
Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29427&group=comp.theory#29427

 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: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 16:57:39 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 16:57:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Content-Language: en-US
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Subject: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 30
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-rfg7pDffTCgJQHMv200i8kkthAz+9Ty0LtksAbXafE72tBcqr7DUrh99bakoMEONPAqIWGup26OPAFD!sUJ3CydREfZ+rzEZO41tz1HOJ/9ZVJMPgwo0X6JwuRu9MBrwk8KeXheLWnspfKgsjOtkfP5h6yPh!6Q==
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: 2161
 by: olcott - Tue, 5 Apr 2022 21:57 UTC

When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
known that I am correct:

WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state.

HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
its own accept or reject state:

On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.

THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual input.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V4)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359349179_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V4

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<a343K.622345$oF2.426813@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29430&group=comp.theory#29430

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.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/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <a343K.622345$oF2.426813@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: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 19:14:14 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2405
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 5 Apr 2022 23:14 UTC

On 4/5/22 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> known that I am correct:
>
> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
> its own accept or reject state.
>
> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
> its own accept or reject state:
>
> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>
> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual input.
>
>

No, because the input <H^> <H^> specifies the exact sequence of H^
applied to <H^>.

That is the DEFINITION of how a Halt Decider is to interpret its input!!

Remmber, H applied to <M> w goes to Qy iff M applied to w reaches a
final state.

That DEFINES how the input specifies its behavior. PERIOD.

ANY other specification just isn't the Halting Problem.

Note, 'Linz' didn't 'Invent' this definition, that is what the
definition has ALWAYS been, since the beginning of Computation Theory.

>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V4)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359349179_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V4
>
>

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<kj43K.26584$Kdf.14160@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29435&group=comp.theory#29435

 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!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.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/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <kj43K.26584$Kdf.14160@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: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 19:31:28 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2333
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 5 Apr 2022 23:31 UTC

On 4/5/22 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> known that I am correct:
>
> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
> its own accept or reject state.
>
> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings to
> its own accept or reject state:
>
> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>
> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual input.
>
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V4)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359349179_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V4
>
>

Nope the ONLY applicable definition of the 'sequence of configurations'
specfied by the input to a halt decider come from the problem statement
(not just by Linz, but back to the start).

H applied to <M> w needs to determine the behavior of M applied to w.

Thus the ONLY possible meaning of <H^> <H^> is H^ applied to <H^>, which
even YOU admit will halt if H applied to <H^> <H^> -> Qn.

YOU are the one with the wrong definition.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29446&group=comp.theory#29446

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 03:01:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="868cbdde2d6be9fafaea86462d662626";
logging-data="9177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19opMxYiaao+um8kngvKLGQN0CoeOC6CPA="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pVKJrkNPY1NMD0cPjdrkdZS18Dw=
sha1:Zd8SVW1njRTvE/IzY3osXx1v6PY=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.aeff6e1099e01317954d.20220406030101BST.8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 02:01 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> known that I am correct:
>
> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> to its own accept or reject state.
>
> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> to its own accept or reject state:
>
> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>
> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
> input.

What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?

Given that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qn what state does H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
transition to?

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29448&group=comp.theory#29448

 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!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: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 21:25:43 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 21:25:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 38
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-U6NeUAeW57HqSQxum8uxXbX3U3Qk+3sdHTBe8YYUGADCeim7OOkn7PN329w9t82bAgnpT1rtbewylA/!JPWxuWSgUJ7yr295DJ+xsMmKh4WIbDZNzYgDQF8VuQPdYUwggksbiqF8ipGGsiweu1+lsh5OV3yz!SQ==
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: 2672
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 02:25 UTC

On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>> known that I am correct:
>>
>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>
>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>
>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>
>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>> input.
>
> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>

Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
different halting behavior from each other?

When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must be
the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT SEQUENCES.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<d773K.749336$aT3.468621@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29449&group=comp.theory#29449

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <d773K.749336$aT3.468621@fx09.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 22:43:21 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3993
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 02:43 UTC

On 4/5/22 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>> known that I am correct:
>>>
>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>
>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>
>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>
>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>> input.
>>
>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>
>
> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
> different halting behavior from each other?
>
> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must be
> the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT SEQUENCES.
>

So, do you think a given Turing Machine when applied to a given input
might have diferent behaviors depending on (something)?

The PURPOSE of the Halting Problem is to ask about the behavior of a
given Turing Machine applied to a given input.

If you can't ask your decider about some Turing Machine applied to some
input will do, is it really answering the Halting Problem.

This goes back to the point that if someone asks you how many cats you
have, and you keep telling them how many dogs your have, are you
answering correctly?

You comments seems to indicate that you just don't understand the
concept of a specification.

H is SPECIFED to return the answer about the halting behavior of a
certain Turing Machine applied to a certain input, and that decider will
define how to 'encode' that machine and input to ask it that.

The notation <M> means some sort of string encoding of the Turing
Machine M so that the decide can try to work out the answer, and w means
some sort of string encoding of the string that would be given to M so
the decider can work out the answer.

Thus applying H to <H^> <H^> MEANS asking H about the halting behavior
of the Turing Machine H^ applied to the input <H^>.

If that isn't what it means, then the inputs weren't constructed
correctly, or the decider is just not able to do its job.

If there is no string to ask the question, then the decider starts off
having failed to be able to do the job.

Your refusal to define what to give your machine as an input just
demonstrates that it (and you) have failed to meet the basic
requirements of the task.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29451&group=comp.theory#29451

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 04:42:03 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="868cbdde2d6be9fafaea86462d662626";
logging-data="6093"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hcerVgPQA1fJUVEdfr2MVSs23XV01esQ="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qYESyMBpTXrgPfPcnjrY8Y6y3pQ=
sha1:lsFkbsR8RTS2RwHrTr2+6ir3xR0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.67c8292a2b00221c35fb.20220406044203BST.87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 03:42 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>> known that I am correct:
>>>
>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>
>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>
>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>
>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>> input.
>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>
> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
> different halting behavior from each other?

No an answer.

> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
> SEQUENCES.

Your opinion is noted. What string must be passed to H so that H can
tell us whether or not Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?

Given that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qn what state does H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
transition to?

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29453&group=comp.theory#29453

 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: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 23:08:06 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 23:08:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 49
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-v4PnEfjkYDpVy7mb6tfXDRaT+1qga6Tbz0SDpoSqOIeu9zUd77TUQXrIRPNqi3Oo+OOEBh3lR3dtCeF!EkztiqfyBpZMuOd1u6eXXqcTVE98gxg6xGgyutfEa63692DOLt4eEqEk/QWhboudzoPzKNfszMXV!ow==
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: 2977
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 04:08 UTC

On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>
>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>
>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>
>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>
>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>> input.
>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>
>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>> different halting behavior from each other?
>
> No an answer.
>

Prerequisite order is required.

>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>> SEQUENCES.
>
> Your opinion is noted.

It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<t2jjpd$4hc$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29454&group=comp.theory#29454

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mikko.le...@iki.fi (Mikko)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:42:21 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <t2jjpd$4hc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="25e579d20a08571d022e541bc89c636f";
logging-data="4652"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ni2ppM5v4ZsdY7HvhGh5K"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RmV6mYTSvVfelksRU1WmsE1+iFw=
 by: Mikko - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:42 UTC

On 2022-04-05 21:57:37 +0000, olcott said:

> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> known that I am correct:
>
> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> to its own accept or reject state.

This tells that a halt decider must be a decider but does not tell
how a halt decider differs from any other decider.

> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> to its own accept or reject state:
>
> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.

The last line is too vague, and there is no point in an agreement about
words without an agreement about the meaning of those words.
In particular, the word "specified" does not specify what interpretation
of the input gives the "specified" behaviour.

> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
> input.

No, it is not a mistake. The exact meaning of "specified" is left vague.
Therefore there can be different correct interpretations.

Mikko

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<Vje3K.15852$O01.9484@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29456&group=comp.theory#29456

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.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) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <Vje3K.15852$O01.9484@fx33.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: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 06:54:45 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3026
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:54 UTC

On 4/6/22 12:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>
>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>
>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>
>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>> input.
>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>
>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>
>> No an answer.
>>
>
> Prerequisite order is required.
>
>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>> SEQUENCES.
>>
>> Your opinion is noted.
>
> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>

No, it isn't. ALL your 'proof' devolve into something being
'self-evident' that can;t actually be shown, or to something 'by the
meaning of the words' when you can't actually show the correct meaning
of the words.

In other words, your only evidence they are correct is because you just
say it is.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29457&group=comp.theory#29457

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 12:57:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_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="868cbdde2d6be9fafaea86462d662626";
logging-data="6976"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BYpjqhIjJr/T0Cb0abwt/yIQh3gxZyrM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FaSQBZyfWdiio2mNzwCaH09SZCo=
sha1:Hu+iKPx8pi8l6+4GdDFqOf7H184=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.458bb4ee60e6199bba63.20220406125701BST.87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:57 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>
>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>
>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>
>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>> input.
>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>
>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>> No an answer.
>
> Prerequisite order is required.

What do I need to order?

>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>> SEQUENCES.
>> Your opinion is noted.
>
> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.

Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
questions:

What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?

Given that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qn what state does H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
transition to?

Multiple people have asked multiple times, but there's always some
excuse...

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<xJudnQGH2LQ5NND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29466&group=comp.theory#29466

 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 09:54:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:54:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2jjpd$4hc$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2jjpd$4hc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xJudnQGH2LQ5NND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 45
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5eWTNwqZBFz0RlpUHliCRWyCxZOa9yqWaCQU1M8t1yLqIoFOQjkmqrfm+Ep8LlEADhvefAbXVbPL0gf!t7KPnYvKkBk3uGaju160yoLzGUGZFfyGa1zpg84i+9yk/5Fu+0pYdc20yOqkrJvS7K6bsfsRLYo+!PQ==
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: 3014
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:54 UTC

On 4/6/2022 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-04-05 21:57:37 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>> known that I am correct:
>>
>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>> to its own accept or reject state.
>
> This tells that a halt decider must be a decider but does not tell
> how a halt decider differs from any other decider.
>
>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>
>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>
> The last line is too vague, and there is no point in an agreement about
> words without an agreement about the meaning of those words.
> In particular, the word "specified" does not specify what interpretation
> of the input gives the "specified" behaviour.
>
>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>> input.
>
> No, it is not a mistake. The exact meaning of "specified" is left vague.
> Therefore there can be different correct interpretations.
>
> Mikko
>

The actual execution trace of the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
conclusively proves that it would never reach its own final state under
any condition what-so-ever thus must be rejected by embedded_H.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29467&group=comp.theory#29467

 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 09:57:52 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:57:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-F59fuQ8plHyJnM4I8UUX51KLUh5FbxSd5UY3UsTVof3z3SOVrUiCX6RtUaEtRIyk0mi4gbQrwd6XFzP!H5rod1sFrAJrAVL3YCTuqLZVKnKc2Sv6MEGkQMtfXaTkjQ9odt64sty8r+XZNIwJRpVHqP1BqY+G!IA==
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: 3835
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:57 UTC

On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>> input.
>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>> No an answer.
>>
>> Prerequisite order is required.
>
> What do I need to order?
>
>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>
>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>
> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
> questions:
>
> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?

You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
you first understand this:

The actual execution trace of the simulated input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H
conclusively proves that it would never reach its own final state under
any condition what-so-ever thus must be rejected by embedded_H.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29503&group=comp.theory#29503

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 22:25:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_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="868cbdde2d6be9fafaea86462d662626";
logging-data="3521"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kT59xvZeuNHHX9keOZFTv8mg20fgNvig="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CU+AocZFvuihf9ZJOfTG6dmlMio=
sha1:drD2N7rH3lDbUfUUZ2xuijdYxac=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.47c5671d95f3db8808f7.20220406222543BST.875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 21:25 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>>> No an answer.
>>>
>>> Prerequisite order is required.
>> What do I need to order?
>>
>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>>
>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
>> questions:
>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>
> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
> you first understand this:

No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
wrong.

And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
blue pill.

And as for the second question:

Given that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊦* Ĥ.qn what state does H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩
⟨Ĥ⟩ transition to?

I already know the answer: H.qn.

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29513&group=comp.theory#29513

 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 17:11:57 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:11:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 78
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DVdebc0ePpYWZjxURBt6wwqLsyKJGNUEauZkGKaolLRowNDs5+XBtiLzpxVnL7FlwAIWYAUZtVsTmt0!rtk3ESQXTvcdngiGYV2FshjHQ984B+TwafiGYrUrtFCaiJv2uXAQOgpEMjC+m0cEFWKTEnur43+4!FA==
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: 4559
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:11 UTC

On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>>>> No an answer.
>>>>
>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
>>> What do I need to order?
>>>
>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>>>
>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
>>> questions:
>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>
>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
>> you first understand this:
>
> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
> wrong.
>
> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
> blue pill.

You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
possibly correctly refute this.

Here is a simpler case of that same kind of reasoning:
If X is a dog, then anyone that disagrees is necessarily incorrect.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29518&group=comp.theory#29518

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5a95:0:b0:2e2:e4f:63c with SMTP id c21-20020ac85a95000000b002e20e4f063cmr9523431qtc.537.1649285339038;
Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b984:0:b0:629:6b2a:8328 with SMTP id
r4-20020a25b984000000b006296b2a8328mr8726646ybg.112.1649285338806; Wed, 06
Apr 2022 15:48:58 -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: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_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: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 22:48:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 96
 by: Dennis Bush - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:48 UTC

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> >>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> >>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> >>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> >>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> >>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
> >>>>>>>> input.
> >>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
> >>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
> >>>>> No an answer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Prerequisite order is required.
> >>> What do I need to order?
> >>>
> >>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
> >>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
> >>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
> >>>>>> SEQUENCES.
> >>>>> Your opinion is noted.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
> >>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
> >>> questions:
> >>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>
> >> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
> >> you first understand this:
> >
> > No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
> > wrong.
> >
> > And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
> > answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
> > can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
> > blue pill.
> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
> possibly correctly refute this.

Given Ha3 whose halt status criteria is to simulate for no more that 3 steps and N which takes a string representation of an integer and runs for exactly that many steps:

The correctly simulated input <N><5> to Ha3 cannot possibly reach its own final state, so Ha3 is necessarily correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correct refute this.

Agreed?

>
> Here is a simpler case of that same kind of reasoning:
> If X is a dog, then anyone that disagrees is necessarily incorrect.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29519&group=comp.theory#29519

 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 17:53:02 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:53:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-TLvMGxZh5jXooe8oYfLqgYq7CmXLmuL748ZR6XD/wBHfL157FZNW5AMFBmLx6fGmlUCYZ8yH80RNHC0!Gl9+LaLFc6BFOnDYOGmEbD1ChPxQvr9dLrM2e+Mn2YRlx4woWMTgbZtiSU7lHVX2/z+1qHXDH6E7!mA==
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: 4883
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:53 UTC

On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>>>>>> No an answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
>>>>> What do I need to order?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
>>>>> questions:
>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>
>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
>>>> you first understand this:
>>>
>>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
>>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
>>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
>>> blue pill.
>> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
>> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
>> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
>> possibly correctly refute this.
>
> Given Ha3

So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29521&group=comp.theory#29521

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1a27:b0:2e0:64c2:7469 with SMTP id f39-20020a05622a1a2700b002e064c27469mr9615648qtb.187.1649285880710;
Wed, 06 Apr 2022 15:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:b47:0:b0:63d:b49f:624a with SMTP id
b7-20020a5b0b47000000b0063db49f624amr8237509ybr.149.1649285880511; Wed, 06
Apr 2022 15:58:00 -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: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:58:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com> <Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 22:58:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 101
 by: Dennis Bush - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:58 UTC

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> >>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> >>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> >>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> >>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
> >>>>>>>>>> input.
> >>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
> >>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
> >>>>>>> No an answer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
> >>>>> What do I need to order?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
> >>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
> >>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
> >>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
> >>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
> >>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
> >>>>> questions:
> >>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>
> >>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
> >>>> you first understand this:
> >>>
> >>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
> >>> wrong.
> >>>
> >>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
> >>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
> >>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
> >>> blue pill.
> >> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
> >> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
> >> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
> >> possibly correctly refute this.
> >
> > Given Ha3
> So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.

Not at all. You stated why you believe embedded_H, or more specifically embedded_Ha, and therefore Ha, is correct to reject. So if you believe your logic is correct, then you necessarily also believe that this is correct:

Given Ha3 whose halt status criteria is to simulate for no more that 3 steps and N which takes a string representation of an integer and runs for exactly that many steps:

The correctly simulated input <N><5> to Ha3 cannot possibly reach its own final state, so Ha3 is necessarily correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correct refute this.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29522&group=comp.theory#29522

 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 18:01:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:01:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com>
<Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 85
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-OYD2GZko63Yf+8Sw9Y2vSV7ySD1qPWYL79+3dCFYESJAyEhP7m35iHjJniWpc7JzQQYagKE4XP1jt73!L9gCj5hsZNDDqbzXjXl6r7uEfGw/ge+Zh7yCPsY7OCON50GJ+7Gd/aLNEUVqL4SMyzqfkedRHFsH!MA==
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: 5400
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:01 UTC

On 4/6/2022 5:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>>>>>>>> No an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
>>>>>>> What do I need to order?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>>>>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
>>>>>>> questions:
>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
>>>>>> you first understand this:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
>>>>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
>>>>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
>>>>> blue pill.
>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
>>>> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
>>>> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
>>>> possibly correctly refute this.
>>>
>>> Given Ha3
>> So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.
>
> Not at all. You stated why you believe embedded_H, or more specifically embedded_Ha,

Not at all. I am not talking about embedded_Ha and you know it.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<cf2edc66-ca66-42ff-96a6-8a37d45a0620n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29523&group=comp.theory#29523

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:27e6:b0:443:f201:a974 with SMTP id jt6-20020a05621427e600b00443f201a974mr6556872qvb.82.1649286344332;
Wed, 06 Apr 2022 16:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:113:b0:2eb:543d:e2c0 with SMTP id
bd19-20020a05690c011300b002eb543de2c0mr9738520ywb.20.1649286344154; Wed, 06
Apr 2022 16:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com> <Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com> <Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <cf2edc66-ca66-42ff-96a6-8a37d45a0620n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:05:44 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 115
 by: Dennis Bush - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:05 UTC

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:01:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 5:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>> input.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
> >>>>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
> >>>>>>>>> No an answer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
> >>>>>>> What do I need to order?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
> >>>>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
> >>>>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
> >>>>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
> >>>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
> >>>>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
> >>>>>>> questions:
> >>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
> >>>>>> you first understand this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
> >>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
> >>>>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
> >>>>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
> >>>>> blue pill.
> >>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
> >>>> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
> >>>> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
> >>>> possibly correctly refute this.
> >>>
> >>> Given Ha3
> >> So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.
> >
> > Not at all. You stated why you believe embedded_H, or more specifically embedded_Ha,
> Not at all. I am not talking about embedded_Ha and you know it.

If embedded_H doesn't abort its simulation, that makes it embedded_Hn. That never answers, so it's not a halt decider. That means embedded_H aborts, so that makes it embedded_Ha. And if you believe embedded_Ha is correct, then you necessarily believe this is correct:

Given Ha3 whose halt status criteria is to simulate for no more that 3 steps and N which takes a string representation of an integer and runs for exactly that many steps:

The correctly simulated input <N><5> to Ha3 cannot possibly reach its own final state, so Ha3 is necessarily correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correct refute this.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<S7CdnQYEo-uVg9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29524&group=comp.theory#29524

 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 18:11:04 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:11:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com>
<Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com>
<Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cf2edc66-ca66-42ff-96a6-8a37d45a0620n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <cf2edc66-ca66-42ff-96a6-8a37d45a0620n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <S7CdnQYEo-uVg9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 100
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-P8mO/4pqKhmUZ+cx+g59urB7RMBf6LZARWImQw0g3t7bazlVPWdIujexKFUDsrboiJOv7kfC4ZOVaov!ugQ8DMnA0LVEnmd0IYBmfFofX4WTfXeEFX+xVDyJGf6eMvqun031s0qa8NI8g1+whaEzGDXNqd5S!iA==
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: 6283
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:11 UTC

On 4/6/2022 6:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:01:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 5:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>>>>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>>>>>>>>>> No an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
>>>>>>>>> What do I need to order?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>>>>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>>>>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>>>>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>>>>>>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
>>>>>>>>> questions:
>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
>>>>>>>> you first understand this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
>>>>>>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
>>>>>>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
>>>>>>> blue pill.
>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
>>>>>> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
>>>>>> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
>>>>>> possibly correctly refute this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given Ha3
>>>> So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.
>>>
>>> Not at all. You stated why you believe embedded_H, or more specifically embedded_Ha,
>> Not at all. I am not talking about embedded_Ha and you know it.
>
> If embedded_H doesn't abort its simulation, that makes it embedded_Hn.

Bullshit.

The correctly simulated input to embedded_H cannot possibly reach it own
final state, that embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject this input
and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correctly refute this.

Not even your bullshit double-talk.

If there is a white dog in your living room and everyone in the universe
swears to God there there is not, there is still a white dog in your
living room.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<bc0bcc47-6020-40cf-af2f-9b0293fd2912n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29526&group=comp.theory#29526

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5be3:0:b0:441:2af0:6ea2 with SMTP id k3-20020ad45be3000000b004412af06ea2mr9738191qvc.116.1649288026710;
Wed, 06 Apr 2022 16:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:780a:0:b0:633:ccea:3430 with SMTP id
t10-20020a25780a000000b00633ccea3430mr8263188ybc.26.1649288026496; Wed, 06
Apr 2022 16:33:46 -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: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <S7CdnQYEo-uVg9P_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: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com> <Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com> <Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cf2edc66-ca66-42ff-96a6-8a37d45a0620n@googlegroups.com> <S7CdnQYEo-uVg9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <bc0bcc47-6020-40cf-af2f-9b0293fd2912n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:33:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 121
 by: Dennis Bush - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:33 UTC

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:11:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 6:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:01:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2022 5:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
> >>>>>>>>>>> No an answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
> >>>>>>>>> What do I need to order?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
> >>>>>>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
> >>>>>>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
> >>>>>>>>> questions:
> >>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
> >>>>>>>> you first understand this:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
> >>>>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
> >>>>>>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
> >>>>>>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
> >>>>>>> blue pill.
> >>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
> >>>>>> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
> >>>>>> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
> >>>>>> possibly correctly refute this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Given Ha3
> >>>> So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.
> >>>
> >>> Not at all. You stated why you believe embedded_H, or more specifically embedded_Ha,
> >> Not at all. I am not talking about embedded_Ha and you know it.
> >
> > If embedded_H doesn't abort its simulation, that makes it embedded_Hn.
> Bullshit.
>
> The correctly simulated input to embedded_H cannot possibly reach it own
> final state, that embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject this input
> and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correctly refute this.
> Not even your bullshit double-talk.

So if you believe that, then the following MUST be true by the same logic:

Given Ha3 whose halt status criteria is to simulate for no more that 3 steps and N which takes a string representation of an integer and runs for exactly that many steps:

The correctly simulated input <N><5> to Ha3 cannot possibly reach its own final state, so Ha3 is necessarily correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correct refute this.

Agreed?

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<RM-dna9t_tZLvtP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29529&group=comp.theory#29529

 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: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 18:35:49 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:35:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com>
<Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com>
<Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cf2edc66-ca66-42ff-96a6-8a37d45a0620n@googlegroups.com>
<S7CdnQYEo-uVg9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<bc0bcc47-6020-40cf-af2f-9b0293fd2912n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <bc0bcc47-6020-40cf-af2f-9b0293fd2912n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <RM-dna9t_tZLvtP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 103
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wZBqo/ZjIKWpwYesXTv91PSXwbka3eKnszYmG/Gdyuna3btu5Idvo2Cu+xwM9dvLT0xYVNfbNC5L+Iu!n+aZP27ZUK8JtGmylLPXCi4ihDQt/I/e508J9INhoyjGMg+WKSaFa5o9klWgrRSsFWk4fEjnJspI!0Q==
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: 6687
 by: olcott - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:35 UTC

On 4/6/2022 6:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:11:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 6:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:01:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2022 5:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
>>>>>>>>>>> What do I need to order?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>>>>>>>>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
>>>>>>>>>>> questions:
>>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
>>>>>>>>>> you first understand this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
>>>>>>>>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
>>>>>>>>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
>>>>>>>>> blue pill.
>>>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
>>>>>>>> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
>>>>>>>> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
>>>>>>>> possibly correctly refute this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given Ha3
>>>>>> So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. You stated why you believe embedded_H, or more specifically embedded_Ha,
>>>> Not at all. I am not talking about embedded_Ha and you know it.
>>>
>>> If embedded_H doesn't abort its simulation, that makes it embedded_Hn.
>> Bullshit.
>>
>> The correctly simulated input to embedded_H cannot possibly reach it own
>> final state, that embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject this input
>> and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correctly refute this.
>> Not even your bullshit double-talk.
>
> So if you believe that, then the following MUST be true by the same logic:
>
> Given Ha3

A agree that you have seemed to be become a liar.
I am not talking about Ha3.

--
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) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<877d81g4rd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29531&group=comp.theory#29531

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:40:22 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <877d81g4rd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9875e55d8daa06cc2a53aa953015877e";
logging-data="32033"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HxuPhd+/G4lB098A2MjKNoFs4h/NpoUo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:InmuszeP5L9Hi9qyONwypiDzzsA=
sha1:xH+/j3mllFG6sfMpY0cmeiBXg0c=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.7f2ea642a55d3d821b5a.20220407004022BST.877d81g4rd.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:40 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
>>>>>> No an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
>>>> What do I need to order?
>>>>
>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
>>>> questions:
>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
>>>
>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
>>> you first understand this:
>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
>> wrong.
>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
>> blue pill.
>
> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is
> necessarily correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole
> universe can possibly correctly refute this.

Thanks. Keep not saying what string must be passed to H so that H can
tell us whether or not Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts and what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
transitions to. I can't hope for any better evidence that you know you
are wrong than your desperate attempt to not answer these two trivial
questions.

--
Ben.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ Everyone's Mistake ]

<314c3a55-80e2-4bc7-ba85-57909170a200n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29533&group=comp.theory#29533

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:208:b0:2e1:b3ec:b7ce with SMTP id b8-20020a05622a020800b002e1b3ecb7cemr9766261qtx.345.1649288706587;
Wed, 06 Apr 2022 16:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2d66:0:b0:63d:74c5:9a27 with SMTP id
s38-20020a252d66000000b0063d74c59a27mr9255210ybe.243.1649288706438; Wed, 06
Apr 2022 16:45:06 -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: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <RM-dna9t_tZLvtP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <Zfmdnc5TnpTOJtH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ir3r8i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zZCdnaXGX4i6Z9H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrm3mk4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5ICdnU3x0aO7j9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhu2zn6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xJudnQCH2LTtN9D_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<875ynlhpk8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXQbkbOwjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ef5e5bc0-647f-4b0a-85eb-7ecfbb3e388cn@googlegroups.com> <Y8Cdna2OHf9ThNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<e4e6f17f-a156-4c2f-9ef9-4f7ac47eb613n@googlegroups.com> <Z_qdnVmPT79ZhtP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<cf2edc66-ca66-42ff-96a6-8a37d45a0620n@googlegroups.com> <S7CdnQYEo-uVg9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<bc0bcc47-6020-40cf-af2f-9b0293fd2912n@googlegroups.com> <RM-dna9t_tZLvtP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <314c3a55-80e2-4bc7-ba85-57909170a200n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
Everyone's Mistake ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:45:06 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 126
 by: Dennis Bush - Wed, 6 Apr 2022 23:45 UTC

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:35:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 6:33 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:11:11 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/6/2022 6:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 7:01:31 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/6/2022 5:58 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:53:09 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:12:05 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:57 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 10:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2022 9:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the last sentence of the following is fully understood it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known that I am correct:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WE ALL AGREE ON THIS:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE IS WHERE WE DIVERGE:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its input finite strings
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to its own accept or reject state:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS EVERYONE'S MISTAKE
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of my reviewers (and Linz) always measure a different sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations than the one that is actually specified by the actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that different sequences of configurations may have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different halting behavior from each other?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No an answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Prerequisite order is required.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What do I need to order?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When one sequence of configurations seems intuitively identical to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> another sequence then computer science says that their behavior must
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be the same UNLESS INTUITION IS WRONG AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SEQUENCES.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your opinion is noted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is an objectively verifiable fact, not a mere opinion.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Then there is no reason for you fear answering these two basic but key
> >>>>>>>>>>> questions:
> >>>>>>>>>>> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> >>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer to that question until after
> >>>>>>>>>> you first understand this:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No, you can't post the answer because you know it will show you are
> >>>>>>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And, seriously, what do you think could make me not understand the
> >>>>>>>>> answer? It's a string. How complicated it is? What you mean is that I
> >>>>>>>>> can't possibly understand /that your answer is correct/ until I take the
> >>>>>>>>> blue pill.
> >>>>>>>> You cannot possibly understand my answer until after you first
> >>>>>>>> understand that because the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach it own final state, that embedded_H is necessarily
> >>>>>>>> correct to reject this input and nothing in the whole universe can
> >>>>>>>> possibly correctly refute this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Given Ha3
> >>>>>> So you change the subject. That is a dishonest thing to do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not at all. You stated why you believe embedded_H, or more specifically embedded_Ha,
> >>>> Not at all. I am not talking about embedded_Ha and you know it.
> >>>
> >>> If embedded_H doesn't abort its simulation, that makes it embedded_Hn..
> >> Bullshit.
> >>
> >> The correctly simulated input to embedded_H cannot possibly reach it own
> >> final state, that embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject this input
> >> and nothing in the whole universe can possibly correctly refute this.
> >> Not even your bullshit double-talk.
> >
> > So if you believe that, then the following MUST be true by the same logic:
> >
> > Given Ha3
> A agree that you have seemed to be become a liar.
> I am not talking about Ha3.

So you're avoiding that fact that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5>? Because there is no finite number of steps that Ha3 can possibly simulate its input to reach its final state of <N.qy>.

Pages:12
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor