Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Phasers locked on target, Captain.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
| `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant or Dishonest ]olcott
|   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant or Dishonest ]Richard Damon
|    |         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           |   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           |     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           |       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           |         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           |           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant or Dishonest ]Richard Damon
|    |           |             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           |               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |           |                `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |               +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |               |`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                 `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant or Dishonest ](typo)Richard Damon
|    |                     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                                `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                                 `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                                  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                                   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
|    |                                    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orRichard Damon
|    |                                     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                 `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                                `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                                 `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                                  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                                   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                                    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                                     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                                      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                                       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    |                                                                        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ HonestRichard Damon
|    |                                                                         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Honestolcott
|    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Ignorant orolcott
`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ Linz Proof ]Steve

Pages:123456789101112
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26213&group=comp.theory#26213

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:24:31 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <LCwJJ.50318$gX.12924@fx40.iad>
<UK-dnQx29oAWMmv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:24:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a87e71aa7469b3ef2a9262e41d0d7f99";
logging-data="3478"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+OFtdwuAv1/wWPPkKG3LD"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U1bwmjNi/5U6pm9PZ9E8PTW96Xo=
In-Reply-To: <rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:24 UTC

On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>
>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>
>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence then
>>> it makes much more sense.
>>>
>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition to
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>
>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you
>> can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot simulate
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.

Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place where
you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not more, nit picky.

> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot possibly
> reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily correct to
> transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.

But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse. "Its
simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
simulation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. There is no such thing as "the
simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩".

Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the *exact* same computation as the one in which
your embedded_H is contained, so the simulation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
*must* reach the same final state as your embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

If it is not possible for the simulation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to reach a
final state, then it is equally impossible for embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
⟨Ĥ⟩ to reach a final state. Yet you claim it "correctly" transitions to
Ĥ.qn which *is* a final state.

Computations compute FUNCTIONS. And functions are *consistent* mappings
of elements from a domain to a codomain. That means that if Ĥ applied to
⟨Ĥ⟩ maps to 'reject' it must *always* map to 'reject'. If it does not,
you are not dealing with a function, which means you are not dealing
with a computation. It *cannot* be the case that the upper Ĥ applied to
⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn but that the simulation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
not transition to Ĥ.qn.

André

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26214&group=comp.theory#26214

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:33:04 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:33:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a87e71aa7469b3ef2a9262e41d0d7f99";
logging-data="5945"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Gixqf3U7W8khjXg4piJVS"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ESxyqAbmKWIDMGYN18JffvvnDhc=
In-Reply-To: <dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:33 UTC

On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:

> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.

Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a UTM
*at* *all*.

If embedded_H were a UTM, then

embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩
embedded_H would reject ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ rejects ⟨Ĥ⟩
embedded_H would fail to halt on ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ failed to halt on ⟨Ĥ⟩

That's not what embedded_H does.

The term "UTM' actually means something. It isn't some metaphor that can
be applied haphazardly to anything.

André

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26215&group=comp.theory#26215

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:44:22 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<UK-dnQx29oAWMmv8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:44:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f670614518067427e06fab8438127b75";
logging-data="9201"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6ZYO2EF04QByFZzfGK4/u"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3RwLfqcaF4d5PSaLp+PmWNP/rec=
In-Reply-To: <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:44 UTC

On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>
>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>
>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>
>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you
>>> can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot simulate
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>
> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place where
> you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not more, nit
> picky.
>

It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the gist
of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it exactly
according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid any
attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.

>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily correct
>> to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>
> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse. "Its
> simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the

Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.

If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to transition to
Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.

In much simpler terms if the input to simulating halt decider H never
halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input never halts.

In even simpler terms if you see an actual dog then you are correct to
say: "I saw a dog", even if everyone else in the universe disagrees.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26216&group=comp.theory#26216

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:58:22 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:58:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a87e71aa7469b3ef2a9262e41d0d7f99";
logging-data="12689"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/j8kTN3kS+St/NN5z76OmX"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k1azH5ZSlxje4xQ+U9tdZD9Kx6k=
In-Reply-To: <stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:58 UTC

On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>
>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>
>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you
>>>> can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot simulate
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>
>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place where
>> you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not more, nit
>> picky.
>>
>
> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the gist
> of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it exactly
> according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid any
> attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>
>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily correct
>>> to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>
>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse. "Its
>> simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as meaning
>> the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>
> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.

No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It takes
as its input a finite string which represents that Turing Machine/Input
pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about simulating a finite string.

> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to transition to
> Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.

Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.

What you're doing is essentially the same thing as if I produced a SUM
TM which, given ⟨3⟩ and ⟨2⟩ as inputs, produced the output ⟨6⟩, and me
claiming that it is correct because it isn't responsible for adding the
integers, only the finite strings which SUM was given as inputs, and
that my algorithm correctly determines that SUM ⟨3⟩⟨2⟩ is ⟨6⟩ despite
the fact that SUM 3 2 is 5.

> In much simpler terms if the input to simulating halt decider H never
> halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input never halts.

Inputs don't halt or not halt. Only the TM/input pair which the input
*describes* can halt or not halt.

André

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident truth ]

<XjnKJ.715$SeK9.94@fx97.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26217&group=comp.theory#26217

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx97.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V59 [ self-evident
truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <wv2KJ.25296$tW.1549@fx39.iad>
<b_SdnVRGB-GdK2X8nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4L2KJ.23685$jb1.8458@fx46.iad>
<rv2dnc__PYfMJ2X8nZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Pu3KJ.19025$mS1.14927@fx10.iad>
<H7mdnTXm59-szWT8nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<493efce8-cf20-4271-8f47-2858fa3812efn@googlegroups.com>
<1eqdnSCcgMlI4GT8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4e7f9c66-8852-4bb7-b913-e94a1a174120n@googlegroups.com>
<D5OdnUegTcZCOmT8nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<835fc384-dc10-4215-b61f-72dc9b42089en@googlegroups.com>
<AJidnaw87NhNLGT8nZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <KbkKJ.672$Tr18.91@fx42.iad>
<E_6dnfF5JpXmRWT8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2ilKJ.5793$t2Bb.4750@fx98.iad>
<D_CdnZ6qbPsHf2T8nZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<zwlKJ.3364$979a.3158@fx14.iad>
<ydWdnbuAithrdWT8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ZUlKJ.506$Rza5.3@fx47.iad>
<vsudneA4J4TAcmT8nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <uimKJ.4$f2a5.0@fx48.iad>
<KNqdnfmECvWLZGT8nZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <KNqdnfmECvWLZGT8nZ2dnUU7-dfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 324
Message-ID: <XjnKJ.715$SeK9.94@fx97.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, 1 Feb 2022 22:58:46 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 16722
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:58 UTC

On 2/1/22 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/1/22 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/22 9:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/22 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/22 8:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/22 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 4:12 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 05:36:39 UTC+8, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 3:23 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 2 February 2022 at 02:37:17 UTC+8, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 10:33 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 February 2022 at 23:22:32 UTC+8, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/22 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/31/2022 8:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/2022 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/30/22 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These statements need the conditions, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^ goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H^.Qy/H^.Qn iff H goes to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same way that (5,3) is syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is NOT syntactically specified as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H in the same way that (1,2) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT syntactically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified as an input to Sum(5,3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but perhaps you don't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from you above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement the right answer is based on if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halts which by the definition of a UTM means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The biggest reason for your huge mistakes is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stay sharply focused on a single point. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as if you either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have attention deficit disorder ADD or are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addicted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methamphetamine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The single point is that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to embedded_H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the NOT the input to embedded_H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After we have mutual agreement on this point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we will move on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the points that logically follow from this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Holy shit try to post something that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard does not accept that the input to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copy of Linz H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded at Ĥ.qx is ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. He keeps insisting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, but apparently you can't understand actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INPUT to H is <H^> <H^> but the CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWER that H must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give is based on the behavior of H^ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H^> BECAUSE OF
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE DEFINITION of H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words Sum(3,5) must return the value of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sum(7,8)?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't know how you get that from what I said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any moron knows that a function is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for its actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the actual input to H is <H^> <H^> which MEANS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINITION of the Halting Problem that H is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asked to decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Halting Status of H^ applied to <H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is not it. That is like saying "by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition" Sum(3,5) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being asked about Sum(7,8).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again your RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is being asked EXACTLY what it being asked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H wM w -> H.Qy if M applied to w Halts, and H.Qn if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGREED?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is wrong. embedded_H is being asked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you say 'No', then you aren't doing the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirement I stated is EXACTLY the requirement of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting Problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem is vague on the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting, it includes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a machine has stopped running and that a machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. My definition only includes the latter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a NDTM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondeterministic_Turing_machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a NDTM, a Turing Machine only actually halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when it reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state. People not very familiar with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material may get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confused and believe that a TM halts when its stops
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running because its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation has been aborted. This key distinction is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified in most halting problem proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whenever it enters
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where did Linz mention 'simulation' and 'abort'?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have shown how my system directly applies to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and it can be understood as correct by anyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understands
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem at a much deeper level than rote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> memorization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following simplifies the syntax for the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Linz
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine Ĥ, it is now a single machine with a single
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A copy of Linz H is embedded at Ĥ.qx.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ? (No means that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are defining POOP [Richard Damon]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I think C program is more simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Genius hits a target no one else can see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André had recommended many online sites for you to learn or
>>>>>>>>>>>> test, I forget which posts it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Type it into a TM simulator and prove your claim, your words
>>>>>>>>>>>> are meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have already proved that I know one key fact about halt
>>>>>>>>>>> deciders that no one else here seems to know.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No one here understands that because a halt decider is a
>>>>>>>>>>> decider that it must compute the mapping from its inputs to
>>>>>>>>>>> an accept of reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> specified by these inputs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the input <H^> <H^> is EXACTLY the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of H^ applied to <H^> which does Halt if H goes to H.Qn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter if embedded_H is not a ACTUAL UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As soon as embedded_H correctly recognizes this as an infinite
>>>>>>> behavior pattern:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then embedded_H can correctly abort the simulation of its input
>>>>>>> and correctly transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above words can be verified as completely true entirely on
>>>>>>> the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, proven otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I said above is true by logical necessity and you simply
>>>>> aren't bright enough to understand this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you can provide a step by step proof of it?
>>>>
>>>>> If X then Y and if Y then Z and X then Z. There is no way around this.
>>>>
>>>> And what are your X, Y and Z?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If embedded_H correctly recognizes that its input specifies non
>>>>> halting behavior then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>>>> report this
>>>>> non halting behavior.
>>>>
>>>> *IF* it correct recognizes. Since there is no pattern in H's
>>>> simulation of <H^> <H^> THAT IS a proof of non-halting
>>> You must be a liar.
>>>
>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>     Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>     Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>     Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>> But if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn aften N steps, then it is also true that
>> the computation H1 <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn after N steps and the pattern ends.
>
> This is a woeful lack of basic software engineering skill on your part.
> When a process is terminated by the operating system no aspect of this
> process continues to execute at all.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26218&group=comp.theory#26218

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:59:54 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:59:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f670614518067427e06fab8438127b75";
logging-data="12968"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bPk/Oi6ggHYPEa+pO5+wJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v3KOs2TFMZthwGcgLTZ0mTiQKKY=
In-Reply-To: <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 03:59 UTC

On 2/1/2022 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:
>
>> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>
> Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a UTM
> *at* *all*.
>
> If embedded_H were a UTM, then
>
> embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩

embedded_H merely determines whether or not its input specifies a finite
sequence of configurations. It does not give a rats ass about anything
else in the universe.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<slnKJ.716$SeK9.440@fx97.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26219&group=comp.theory#26219

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx97.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <slnKJ.716$SeK9.440@fx97.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, 1 Feb 2022 23:00:24 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 3674
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 04:00 UTC

On 2/1/22 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/1/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>
>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>
>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you
>>>> can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot simulate
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>
>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily correct
>>> to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>
>>
>> Except that the definition of the Halting Problem (combined with the
>> definition of a UTM) says that it is only the simulation of the input
>> to H by an actual UTM that matters to determine if the input
>> represents a Halting Computation or not.
> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>

So it fails to be a UTM.

By that definition you are just a monkey with extra features.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<TqnKJ.10$f2a5.4@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26220&group=comp.theory#26220

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <TqnKJ.10$f2a5.4@fx48.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, 1 Feb 2022 23:06:11 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5575
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 04:06 UTC

On 2/1/22 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>
>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>
>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you
>>>> can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot simulate
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>
>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place where
>> you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not more, nit
>> picky.
>>
>
> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the gist
> of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it exactly
> according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid any
> attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.

The essence of the gist of what you are saying is NONSENSE as you fail
to meet that basic meaning of the terms.

>
>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily correct
>>> to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>
>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse. "Its
>> simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as meaning
>> the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>
> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.

And the only 'simulator' that counts is the simulation whose simulaton
exactly reproduces the behavior of the machine it is simulating the
description of. THAT is the UTM.

>
> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to transition to
> Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>

IF IT WAS the correct simulation.

The only time the correct simulation of the input to H never reaches a
final state is if H never goes to H.Qn

> In much simpler terms if the input to simulating halt decider H never
> halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input never halts.

Right, If H never goes to H.Qn, then it WOULD have been correct for it
to have done so, but since it didn't (as that is the only case it would
have been corret) it is wrong.

>
> In even simpler terms if you see an actual dog then you are correct to
> say: "I saw a dog", even if everyone else in the universe disagrees.
>

IF you saw a dog, but since you didn't actually prove non-halting, you
didn't.

Ultimately, for your H to be correct in needs to get the right truth
value to the statement: "This Statement is False".

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<JtnKJ.11$f2a5.6@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26221&group=comp.theory#26221

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!news.pop-hannover.net!news-feed.cs.net.de!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <JtnKJ.11$f2a5.6@fx48.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, 1 Feb 2022 23:09:13 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 2882
 by: Richard Damon - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 04:09 UTC

On 2/1/22 10:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>>
>> Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a
>> UTM *at* *all*.
>>
>> If embedded_H were a UTM, then
>>
>> embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> embedded_H merely determines whether or not its input specifies a finite
> sequence of configurations. It does not give a rats ass about anything
> else in the universe.
>

Which has been proven that no finite pattern exists to be detected.

So your embedded_H is just a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn that just
doesn't exist, so proven by Linz.

FAIL.

Unless you find an actual flaw in that proof, you lose.

Maybe that is the issue, your don't give a rats ass about what is
actually correct, only what you want to believe.

If Truth doesn't matter, nothing matters.

Think about that.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26222&group=comp.theory#26222

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 21:10:17 -0700
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 04:10:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a87e71aa7469b3ef2a9262e41d0d7f99";
logging-data="15077"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XBEeEbafIA/M+chGB5Ptt"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+9aPn/cS1R6OIZVCeMfBt2ikuLY=
In-Reply-To: <stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 04:10 UTC

On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>>
>> Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a
>> UTM *at* *all*.
>>
>> If embedded_H were a UTM, then
>>
>> embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩

And in a previous post you accused *me* of snipping part way through?

> embedded_H merely determines whether or not its input specifies a finite
> sequence of configurations. It does not give a rats ass about anything
> else in the universe.

Which again means that it is not a UTM since that is *not* what a UTM
determines.

Being a halt decider and being a UTM are mutually exclusive.

André

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26227&group=comp.theory#26227

 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, 02 Feb 2022 09:20:20 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:20:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <_bzJJ.7760$rU.4222@fx34.iad>
<gv2dneHXF-XaWGv8nZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 114
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8OzI8UYS91CJtX3pY67b8Y4P/Ou3U4D7ahytZTOD6A8Qb9UVDqfTzi423/K/RthO7dKROKwEIkXCRGw!yqRgzIfiXB8wD+tKII8oturn6Y4GCqkSUL63wlaDrOHfrez9t7ODnuBZ9yW5HdSJFjQYlKwe5MuP
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: 7373
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:20 UTC

On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly transition
>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or
>>>>> you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot
>>>>> simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>
>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>> more, nit picky.
>>>
>>
>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the gist
>> of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it
>> exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never
>> paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>
>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>>>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>>>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily
>>>> correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input
>>>> never halts.
>>>
>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input,
>>> i.e. the
>>
>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>
> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It takes
> as its input a finite string which represents that Turing Machine/Input
> pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about simulating a finite string.
>

It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.

The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the finite
string machine description specifies a finite or infinite sequence of
configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
behavior of the simulated finite string.

Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines not
having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.

>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>> refute this.
>
> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
> both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>

The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.

> What you're doing is essentially the same thing as if I produced a SUM
> TM which, given ⟨3⟩ and ⟨2⟩ as inputs, produced the output ⟨6⟩, and me
> claiming that it is correct because it isn't responsible for adding the
> integers, only the finite strings which SUM was given as inputs, and
> that my algorithm correctly determines that SUM ⟨3⟩⟨2⟩ is ⟨6⟩ despite
> the fact that SUM 3 2 is 5.
>
>> In much simpler terms if the input to simulating halt decider H never
>> halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input never
>> halts.
>
> Inputs don't halt or not halt. Only the TM/input pair which the input
> *describes* can halt or not halt.
>
> André

Inputs to simulating halt deciders are already implicitly specified to
be simulated. We could get verbose and say the simulated inputs to
simulating halt decider:

In much simpler terms if the simulated input to simulating halt decider
H never halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input
never halts.

You and Richard are saying that there are exceptions to this logically
necessary truth. This is like saying that when a dog bites you on the
leg it might not have been a dog and it might not have been your leg
even though it is stipulated that a dog bit you on the leg.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26228&group=comp.theory#26228

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 09:31:03 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 09:31:02 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 54
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-mBDOEMgDKb7efyo+1iuT6mEjfk13oU3icIMl11wxgs7Gib0TdhtX/k59BHDJ9WyTMOP/r5G+dHiEKQ2!RUG0EP8QKRUC68nqrc4aFGOK0TDIsSCbP4JAoAAVdnEYtQhdOvak/XStIiCU+ofNRduVQdWgoqbA
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: 4180
 by: olcott - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 15:31 UTC

On 2/1/2022 10:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>>>
>>> Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a
>>> UTM *at* *all*.
>>>
>>> If embedded_H were a UTM, then
>>>
>>> embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> And in a previous post you accused *me* of snipping part way through?
>

You snipped in the middle of the sentence and then said that the
sentence didn't make sense. I snip down to the most salient point.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ determines that its simulated input would never reach
its final state ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn on the basis of matching this infinite pattern:

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

>> embedded_H merely determines whether or not its input specifies a
>> finite sequence of configurations. It does not give a rats ass about
>> anything else in the universe.
>
> Which again means that it is not a UTM since that is *not* what a UTM
> determines.
>

It is a UTM that has extra features added.

> Being a halt decider and being a UTM are mutually exclusive.
>
> André
>
For all inputs that reach their final state the behavior of embedded_H
is equivalent to a UTM.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<steb4o$dfk$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26229&group=comp.theory#26229

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FredJone...@hotmail.com (Fred)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:22:46 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <steb4o$dfk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: FredJones1987@hotmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="13812"; posting-host="42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Fred - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:22 UTC

On 2/2/2022 7:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:

Shut up idiot.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<steb5r$dfk$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26230&group=comp.theory#26230

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FredJone...@hotmail.com (Fred)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 08:23:21 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <steb5r$dfk$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: FredJones1987@hotmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="13812"; posting-host="42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Content-Language: en-US
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Fred - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 16:23 UTC

On 2/2/2022 7:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:

Shut up moron.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stehv3$pl$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26236&group=comp.theory#26236

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: gregsm...@mathmail.net (Greg Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 10:19:12 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <stehv3$pl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: gregsmith@mathmail.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="821"; posting-host="42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Greg Smith - Wed, 2 Feb 2022 18:19 UTC

On 2/2/2022 7:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:

Shut up idiot.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26251&group=comp.theory#26251

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.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, 2 Feb 2022 19:22:50 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 7937
X-Original-Bytes: 7804
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 00:22 UTC

On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or
>>>>>> you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot
>>>>>> simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>>> more, nit picky.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the
>>> gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it
>>> exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He
>>> never paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>
>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H and
>>>>> embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input cannot
>>>>> possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is necessarily
>>>>> correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input
>>>>> never halts.
>>>>
>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input,
>>>> i.e. the
>>>
>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>
>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It
>> takes as its input a finite string which represents that Turing
>> Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about
>> simulating a finite string.
>>
>
> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>
> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the finite
> string machine description specifies a finite or infinite sequence of
> configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
> behavior of the simulated finite string.
>
> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines not
> having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>
>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>>> refute this.
>>
>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
>> both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>
> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.

Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem, as in the
Halting Promlem it is the Direct Execution of the Computation the input
represents which is the equivalent to the Simulaltion by a UTM, and BY
DEFINITON, a UTM doesn't stop simulating until its simulation reaches a
Halting state.

This, if H/embedded_H stops simulating and going to H.Qn to say the
input doesn't halt, it CAN NOT be a UTM.

FAIL

>
>> What you're doing is essentially the same thing as if I produced a SUM
>> TM which, given ⟨3⟩ and ⟨2⟩ as inputs, produced the output ⟨6⟩, and me
>> claiming that it is correct because it isn't responsible for adding
>> the integers, only the finite strings which SUM was given as inputs,
>> and that my algorithm correctly determines that SUM ⟨3⟩⟨2⟩ is ⟨6⟩
>> despite the fact that SUM 3 2 is 5.
>>
>>> In much simpler terms if the input to simulating halt decider H never
>>> halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input never
>>> halts.
>>
>> Inputs don't halt or not halt. Only the TM/input pair which the input
>> *describes* can halt or not halt.
>>
>> André
>
> Inputs to simulating halt deciders are already implicitly specified to
> be simulated. We could get verbose and say the simulated inputs to
> simulating halt decider:
>

Except that the simulating part of a Simulationg Halt Decider is just an
implementation Detail, unless you want to claim that Simulating Halt
Deciders aren't actually a Sub-Set of Halt Deciders.

> In much simpler terms if the simulated input to simulating halt decider
> H never halts then it is always correct for H to report that its input
> never halts.

And the simulator that counts is the UTM, i.e. the simulator that NEVER
stops simulating until its input reaches a final halting state.

>
> You and Richard are saying that there are exceptions to this logically
> necessary truth. This is like saying that when a dog bites you on the
> leg it might not have been a dog and it might not have been your leg
> even though it is stipulated that a dog bit you on the leg.
>

No, YOU are the one doing that, Halting is measured by the DIRECT
EXECUTION, or by simulation by an ACTUAL UTM.

You are the one saying a Dog bit you when it was you cat.

FAIL

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<LgFKJ.10389$z688.6946@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26252&group=comp.theory#26252

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <LgFKJ.10389$z688.6946@fx35.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, 2 Feb 2022 19:24:12 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 4037
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 00:24 UTC

On 2/2/22 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 10:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 9:33 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H is exactly a UTM with extra features added.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you don't know what 'exactly' means. embedded_H is not a
>>>> UTM *at* *all*.
>>>>
>>>> If embedded_H were a UTM, then
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H would accept ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ if Ĥ accepts ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>
>> And in a previous post you accused *me* of snipping part way through?
>>
>
> You snipped in the middle of the sentence and then said that the
> sentence didn't make sense. I snip down to the most salient point.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>   Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>
> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ determines that its simulated input would never reach
> its final state ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn on the basis of matching this infinite pattern:
>
> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>   Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>   Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>   Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>

Which only occurs if H never aborts its simulation as has been proven
many times.

FAIL.

>>> embedded_H merely determines whether or not its input specifies a
>>> finite sequence of configurations. It does not give a rats ass about
>>> anything else in the universe.
>>
>> Which again means that it is not a UTM since that is *not* what a UTM
>> determines.
>>
>
> It is a UTM that has extra features added.

Which makes it NOT a UTM, because it no long meets the definition of a UTM.

FAIL.

>
>> Being a halt decider and being a UTM are mutually exclusive.
>>
>> André
>>
> For all inputs that reach their final state the behavior of embedded_H
> is equivalent to a UTM.
>

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ IP address: 46.165.242.75 abuse ]

<dhFKJ.10390$z688.4675@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26253&group=comp.theory#26253

 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!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ IP address:
46.165.242.75 abuse ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stehv3$pl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<stei81$8n7$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <stei81$8n7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <dhFKJ.10390$z688.4675@fx35.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, 2 Feb 2022 19:24:42 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 2219
X-Original-Bytes: 1998
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 00:24 UTC

On 2/2/22 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 12:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 7:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Shut up idiot.
>>
>
> User at IP address: 46.165.242.75 must be blocked for abuse
>

Obviously you don't know how USENET works either.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ IP address: 46.165.242.75 abuse ]

<stf890$1crk$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26254&group=comp.theory#26254

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: news.dea...@darjeeling.plus.com (Mike Terry)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ IP address:
46.165.242.75 abuse ]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 00:39:59 +0000
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <stf890$1crk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stehv3$pl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<stei81$8n7$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="45940"; posting-host="CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.7.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Mike Terry - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 00:39 UTC

On 02/02/2022 18:24, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 12:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 7:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Shut up idiot.
>>
>
> User at IP address: 46.165.242.75 must be blocked for abuse
>

Ummm, 46.165.242.75 is his Usenet server IP address....

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26256&group=comp.theory#26256

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 19:41:36 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 19:41:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <d5AJJ.57716$4C3.3626@fx13.iad>
<g6WdndvEcI0PeWv8nZ2dnUU7-VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 97
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-OZHmIAlQ6re+P5/bCr05w4ggPrdCokcanSW/jiOOA4NpitXq4NWN8bS0/ovIWQ63Ftw8frM0ZPOadRY!4fTEQi//C1FvqIx3kKb32eMv7fSpFx9rWZiRm3iESUbz9nx1uMFJmjxJndOnRQ1gBu422hHQ0qbR
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: 6762
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 01:41 UTC

On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the sentence
>>>>>>>> then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or
>>>>>>> you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot
>>>>>>> simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>>>> more, nit picky.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the
>>>> gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say it
>>>> exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He
>>>> never paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>
>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>> and embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input
>>>>>> cannot possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its
>>>>>> simulated input never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input,
>>>>> i.e. the
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>>>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It
>>> takes as its input a finite string which represents that Turing
>>> Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about
>>> simulating a finite string.
>>>
>>
>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>
>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this is
>> the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>
>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines not
>> having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>
>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>>>> refute this.
>>>
>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
>>> both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>
>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>
> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
state (here is the part that you two don't understand):

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26258&group=comp.theory#26258

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.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, 2 Feb 2022 21:08:13 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 6803
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 02:08 UTC

On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or
>>>>>>>> you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You cannot
>>>>>>>> simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>>>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>>>>> more, nit picky.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the
>>>>> gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say
>>>>> it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did. He
>>>>> never paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>>> and embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its
>>>>>>> simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>>>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>>>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>>>>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It
>>>> takes as its input a finite string which represents that Turing
>>>> Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about
>>>> simulating a finite string.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>
>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this
>>> is the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>
>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines not
>>> having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>>
>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>>>>> refute this.
>>>>
>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
>>>> both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>
>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
> state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>
> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>

Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,
and if H goes to H.Qn then the H^ that uses it also goes to H^.Qn and
Halts, and thus we have that the ACTUAL behavior that is specified by
the input <H^> <H^> is Halting if H applied to <H^> <H^> goes to H.Qn.

If you mean some other behavior than that, then you are lying about
working on the Halting Problem.

FAIL.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26260&group=comp.theory#26260

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 20:31:56 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:31:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <gVBJJ.317834$qz4.289863@fx97.iad>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 108
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IK6btqx9XVRk3sb7NWZY+dHBFfwnWM8TUGCgWzeulnqsu2QPKPjkYa8hnm+qN4w3er2oQkCqzf2OJ8h!0AgKD7KU3UEIJ/dQJBLGJzG7oolYc//7Gux0Zajb4T5NAjJaYHwe7UWmiyipdrdkJDgXLRfztmRl
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: 7356
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 02:31 UTC

On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You
>>>>>>>>> cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>>>>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if not
>>>>>>> more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the
>>>>>> gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say
>>>>>> it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did.
>>>>>> He never paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was
>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>>>> and embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input
>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its
>>>>>>>> simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological abuse.
>>>>>>> "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is construed as
>>>>>>> meaning the simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>>>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>>>>>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It
>>>>> takes as its input a finite string which represents that Turing
>>>>> Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about
>>>>> simulating a finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>
>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>>>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>>>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this
>>>> is the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>
>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines
>>>> not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>>>
>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly
>>>>>> reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for embedded_H to
>>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe can possibly
>>>>>> refute this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied
>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>
>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
>> state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>
>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>
>
> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,

These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26261&group=comp.theory#26261

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.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, 2 Feb 2022 21:57:57 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 9012
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 02:57 UTC

On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You
>>>>>>>>>> cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any place
>>>>>>>> where you attempt to publish your results will be equally, if
>>>>>>>> not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of the
>>>>>>> gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did not say
>>>>>>> it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben always did.
>>>>>>> He never paid any attention to the actual substance of what I was
>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>>>>> and embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input
>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its
>>>>>>>>> simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>>>>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis of
>>>>>>> whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input. It
>>>>>> takes as its input a finite string which represents that Turing
>>>>>> Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk about
>>>>>> simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>>>>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>>>>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining this
>>>>> is the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines
>>>>> not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the universe
>>>>>>> can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied
>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>
>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
>>> state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>
>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>
>>
>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,
>
> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
> is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>

WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.

To quote Linz on the Halting Problem:

H applied to wM w needs to go to H.Qy if M applied to w halts, and to
H.Qn if M applied to w never halts.

Halting is defined as A Computation that halts ... The Turing Machine
will halt whenever it reaches a final state.

So, THE DEFINITION above talks about the definition of Halting is based
on the behavior of the ACTUAL MACHINE. Where do you see ANY mention of
the decider being involved in the definition of the right answer?

We have it based on if M applied to w halts, which is based on if M
reachs a final state.

Turing Machine are there OWN machine (they aren't programs run on some
machine, they ARE the computer, so there is no 'pulling the plug'.

From the definition of H, we have that H applied to <H^> <H^> MUST MEAN
that it is looking at the behavor of H^ applied to <H^>

That is EXACTLY what H applied to wM w being based on what M applied to
w means.

From the definiton of H^, H^ applied to w will go to H^.Qn if H applied
to w w goes to H.Qn (Look at the definition of how to build H^).

Thus if H <H^> <H^> goes to H.Qn, we know by construction that H^ <H^>
will also go to H^.Qn and HALT, thus by the above definition, we have
that the computation H^ applied to <H^> is Halting, and from the
definiton of H, H applied to <H^> <H^> must base its answer on what H^
applied to <H^> does or it doesn't meet its requirements.

Since that is exactly what you claim doesn't apply, that means you can
not be working with the defitions of the Halting Problem.

So FAIL.

You need to use the actual meaning of the words, as defined by the field
and the problem you are working in.

Nobody by YOU think that what embedded_H does defines if the input
string <H^> <H^> represents a Halting Computation or not for the Halting
Problem.

Your mind is just stuck in your POOP.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26262&group=comp.theory#26262

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 21:12:25 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 03:12:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b612f85aae1580d8a6f89a8f8f6d5c9f";
logging-data="23697"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/UbsyA/d9ZTapJoqfnvYL"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BlqgqF59FYXnLHWKN6FpqhqOom0=
In-Reply-To: <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 03:12 UTC

On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator. You
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of
>>>>>>>> the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did
>>>>>>>> not say it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben
>>>>>>>> always did. He never paid any attention to the actual substance
>>>>>>>> of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state then
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the actual
>>>>>>>> behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate basis
>>>>>>>> of whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input.
>>>>>>> It takes as its input a finite string which represents that
>>>>>>> Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk
>>>>>>> about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>>>>>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>>>>>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining
>>>>>> this is the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines
>>>>>> not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H applied
>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>>>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
>>>> state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>
>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,
>>
>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>> is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>
> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine description
of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by this
machine description it is just like saying that a black cat is not a cat.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double talk ]

<E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26263&group=comp.theory#26263

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx22.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.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, 2 Feb 2022 22:30:44 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 8445
X-Original-Bytes: 8312
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 03:30 UTC

On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can
>>>>>>>>>>>> apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of
>>>>>>>>> the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did
>>>>>>>>> not say it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben
>>>>>>>>> always did. He never paid any attention to the actual substance
>>>>>>>>> of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state then
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the ultimate
>>>>>>>>> basis of whether or not it specifies a finite sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input.
>>>>>>>> It takes as its input a finite string which represents that
>>>>>>>> Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk
>>>>>>>> about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>>>>>>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>>>>>>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining
>>>>>>> this is the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and machines
>>>>>>> not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H
>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>>>>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>> state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>
>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,
>>>
>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>
>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine description
> of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by this
> machine description it is just like saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>

The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description' has an
actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual behavior of
the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?

embedded_H's simulation FAILS that test, so it is NOT 'the correct
simulation', RIGHT?

It has been shown that H^ applied to <H^> does halt if H <H^> <H^> goes
to H.Qn (which is the answer you are claiming it is 'correctly' giving).

Since H^ <H^> Halts, the 'Correct Simulation' of its representation
which is <H^> <H^> must also halt, RIGHT?

Isn't that the 'Meaning of the words'? RIGHT.

Your H/embedded_H does NOT do that, so it can't be correct? RIGHT?

Somehthing different the the RIGHT answer isn't RIGHT but WRONG.

RIGHT?

You want to claim that the wrong answer is right, because that is the
only way you can hope to make you LIE into something that might be true.

FAIL.

Pages:123456789101112
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor