Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Perl programming is an *empirical* science! -- Larry Wall in <10226@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>


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

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]

<BJ25K.66310$Kdf.48475@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30043&group=comp.theory#30043

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.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!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me>
<oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <BJ25K.66310$Kdf.48475@fx96.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:21:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7149
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:21 UTC

On 4/11/22 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
>>>>>> use the broken notation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>
>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>
>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
>>
>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>> embedded in Ĥ"
>>
>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
>
> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
>
> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM that
> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
> this simulation would never end.

No, it doesn't. It might have a machine that USED to be a UTM but was
modified. but it does NOT have an actual UTM that is given the input if
the decider can answer non-halting. PERIOD. BY DEFINITION.

Maybe you just don't understand the meaning of those simple words.

>
>>
>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>
>> The "ultimate measure" is whether the computation represented by the
>> input is finite. That's the definition of the halting problem. Any
>> other metric is invalid unless it can be shown to be equivalent to
>> this, and since you acknowledge that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does halt, your
>> metric is NOT equivalent. So you are working on the wrong problem.
>>
>
> The ultimate measure of the behavior of the input is the actual freaking
> behavior of the actual freaking input.
>

Right, and the DEFINITION of the behavior of the input <H^> <H^> is the
behavior of H^ applied to <H^>, READ THE PROBLEM.

>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is
>>> a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
>>> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>
>> And from the very article you cite: "Some epistemologists [many, in
>> fact] deny that any proposition can be self-evident." So just claiming
>> that something is 'self-evident' isn't a sufficient basis for an
>> argument -- you'd need to first establish that such propositions are
>> even possible.
>
> self-evident is stipulated to mean any expression of language that can
> be verified as completely true entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>

Which your statememt isn't, so you are just stipulating a falsehood and
invalidating your whole arguement.

FAIL.

>>
>> More importantly, we're not talking about epistemology. We're talking
>> about the halting problem. "self-evident propositions" play no role in
>> formal systems or the theory of computation.
>>
>> Generally, it's not a good idea to import notions from one field into
>> another unless you can actually justify their applicability to that
>> field.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> The meaning of words is ultimately anchored in epistemology.
>

Which isn't relevent to Formal Logic.

FAIL.

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

<mR25K.589663$mF2.349061@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30045&group=comp.theory#30045

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me>
<oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31sld$t8a$1@dont-email.me>
<26bf6f66-8ff9-44b5-8985-468130aec0c8n@googlegroups.com>
<3tednTj7XpEREsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <3tednTj7XpEREsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <mR25K.589663$mF2.349061@fx11.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:29:26 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7587
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:29 UTC

On 4/11/22 4:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:39:44 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-11 12:17, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
>>>>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
>>>>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
>>>>>>>>> use the broken notation?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
>>>>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
>>>>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
>>>>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>>> embedded in Ĥ"
>>>>>
>>>>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
>>>>
>>>> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM
>>>> that
>>>> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
>>>> this simulation would never end.
>>> This claim is simply nonsense.
>>>
>>> A UTM is *defined* as a Turing Machine which takes as its input the
>>> description of a computation and computes what the result of that
>>> computation would be. While this is normally done via something which
>>> might be described as 'simulation', that isn't part of the definition of
>>> a UTM. UTMs are defined in terms of the *result* which they compute.
>>>
>>> If you have some TM which takes a string and prints an infinite number
>>> of copies of that string to the tape (obviously, this is a non-halting
>>> computation), then a UTM must also print and infinite number of copies
>>> of that string to the tape. Would your SHD print an infinite number of
>>> copies of string X when given a description of this TM and X as its
>>> input? Unless the answer is 'yes', you're not dealing with a UTM.
>>>
>>> And since a UTM is defined by what it does rather than by the steps it
>>> takes to do that, saying something acts as a UTM "until X" is entirely
>>> meaningless.
>>>
>> Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle
>> detector.
>> You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a
>> "modified
>> UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is
>> reasonable.
>> And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the
>> infinite cycle
>> detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset
>> of non-
>> halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it
>> can't
>> be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat
>> construct
>> will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
>>
>
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>
> By this measure embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn is correct
> and H(P,P) correctly returns false.
>

Nope, because if embedded_H <H^> <H^> -> H.qn, then by construction the
computation the input represents, and thus the 'behavior' of the input
<H^><H^>. namely H^ <H^> also goes to H^.Qn and Halt. This is also the
CORRECT AND ACTUAL simulation of <H^> <H^> by the defintion of correct
simulation.

This <H^> <H^> represents a HALTING computation and embedded_H was wrong.

You are just stuck on the WRONG 'behavior of the input' because you
think a decider defines the behavior of the input it is given.

FAIL.

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

<631a57c8-8f41-4e44-982e-c4bc088a85ban@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30046&group=comp.theory#30046

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:107:b0:2e1:d655:cc4c with SMTP id u7-20020a05622a010700b002e1d655cc4cmr1373865qtw.669.1649720173957;
Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3b55:0:b0:641:bd5:e3fa with SMTP id
i82-20020a253b55000000b006410bd5e3famr11609649yba.193.1649720173741; Mon, 11
Apr 2022 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3YydnT33g8mepMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me> <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me> <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me> <a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<00f8937a-a27c-4c3c-8abc-e198e305fe5fn@googlegroups.com> <3YydnT33g8mepMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <631a57c8-8f41-4e44-982e-c4bc088a85ban@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:36:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 123
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:36 UTC

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 10:19:54 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 6:50 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:33:06 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
> >>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
> >>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
> >>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
> >>>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points
> >>>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the
> >>>>> broken notation?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> André
> >>>>
> >>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all other
> >>>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
> >>>
> >>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires learning
> >>> to use notation properly so you don't look like an illiterate crank.
> >>>
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> >>>> own final state.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>
> >>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
> >>>
> >>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>
> >> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded in Ĥ
> correct simulation
> correct simulation
> correct simulation
> correct simulation
> correct simulation
> >> is the only thing that is being examined.
> >> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> >> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
> >
> > We've already established that that criteria is invalid because
> Dennis is to stupid to pay attention that a "correct simulation"
> is required thus provides his moronically stupid rebuttal using an
> incorrect simulation.

"Correct simulation" is exactly what we're working to establish.

Do you agree that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>? That Ha3 didn't do a correct simulation because it didn't simulate for long enough, but Ha7 did?

> > it concludes that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5> because "the actual behavior of the actual simulated input" is non-halting by this criteria.
> >
> > You came up with a better one:
> >
> > A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
> > has proof that this simulation would never end.
> >
> > Put another way:
> >
> > If one simulating halt decider reports that an input is non-halting but a second simulating halt decider simulates that same input to completion and reports halting, then the first was not correct to report non-halting.
> >
> > Which would mean that Ha7 accepting <N><5> after simulating that input to its final state of <N.qy> is proof that Ha3 was incorrect to reject <N><5>.
> >
> > Agreed?
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur Schopenhauer

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

<9f39f7b0-6d49-44d2-8d21-38a94a58f3cen@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30048&group=comp.theory#30048

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7614:0:b0:2ed:c70:604c with SMTP id t20-20020ac87614000000b002ed0c70604cmr1375504qtq.391.1649720275856;
Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:80c1:0:b0:641:8d1f:431 with SMTP id
c1-20020a2580c1000000b006418d1f0431mr2761339ybm.486.1649720275629; Mon, 11
Apr 2022 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3tednTj7XpEREsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me> <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me> <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me> <a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me> <oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t31sld$t8a$1@dont-email.me> <26bf6f66-8ff9-44b5-8985-468130aec0c8n@googlegroups.com>
<3tednTj7XpEREsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9f39f7b0-6d49-44d2-8d21-38a94a58f3cen@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:37:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 148
 by: Dennis Bush - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:37 UTC

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:29:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> > On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:39:44 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >> On 2022-04-11 12:17, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
> >>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
> >>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
> >>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
> >>>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
> >>>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
> >>>>>>>> use the broken notation?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
> >>>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
> >>>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
> >>>>>> illiterate crank.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
> >>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
> >>>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
> >>>> embedded in Ĥ"
> >>>>
> >>>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
> >>>
> >>> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
> >>>
> >>> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM that
> >>> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
> >>> this simulation would never end.
> >> This claim is simply nonsense.
> >>
> >> A UTM is *defined* as a Turing Machine which takes as its input the
> >> description of a computation and computes what the result of that
> >> computation would be. While this is normally done via something which
> >> might be described as 'simulation', that isn't part of the definition of
> >> a UTM. UTMs are defined in terms of the *result* which they compute.
> >>
> >> If you have some TM which takes a string and prints an infinite number
> >> of copies of that string to the tape (obviously, this is a non-halting
> >> computation), then a UTM must also print and infinite number of copies
> >> of that string to the tape. Would your SHD print an infinite number of
> >> copies of string X when given a description of this TM and X as its
> >> input? Unless the answer is 'yes', you're not dealing with a UTM.
> >>
> >> And since a UTM is defined by what it does rather than by the steps it
> >> takes to do that, saying something acts as a UTM "until X" is entirely
> >> meaningless.
> >>
> > Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle detector.
> > You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a "modified
> > UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is reasonable.
> > And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the infinite cycle
> > detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset of non-
> > halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it can't
> > be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat construct
> > will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
> >
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.

So what is the actual behavior of the actual simulated input <N><5> to Ha3?

> By this measure embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn is correct
> and H(P,P) correctly returns false.
> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>
> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
> Arthur Schopenhauer

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

<DMCdne820pf5Icn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30050&group=comp.theory#30050

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:40:20 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:40:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me>
<oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31sld$t8a$1@dont-email.me>
<26bf6f66-8ff9-44b5-8985-468130aec0c8n@googlegroups.com>
<3tednTj7XpEREsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9f39f7b0-6d49-44d2-8d21-38a94a58f3cen@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <9f39f7b0-6d49-44d2-8d21-38a94a58f3cen@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <DMCdne820pf5Icn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 125
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tUJJIhHEZWkSce2CsNsAUKqfYcVLTJv2j/IlAM0x9h9OwAs049WUPWuX6KQ5MQ8Bk7wDcQYBISqoD4p!17fa6iCeh6FYzARMlWSX9teSAF2+7bPOWHtftIuHeUSqIX7nrCbCqKIJdK+Ey9Z/MPmGd0hmcTE2
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: 7966
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:40 UTC

On 4/11/2022 6:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:29:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:39:44 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-11 12:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
>>>>>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
>>>>>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
>>>>>>>>>> use the broken notation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
>>>>>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
>>>>>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
>>>>>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
>>>>>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>>>> embedded in Ĥ"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM that
>>>>> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
>>>>> this simulation would never end.
>>>> This claim is simply nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> A UTM is *defined* as a Turing Machine which takes as its input the
>>>> description of a computation and computes what the result of that
>>>> computation would be. While this is normally done via something which
>>>> might be described as 'simulation', that isn't part of the definition of
>>>> a UTM. UTMs are defined in terms of the *result* which they compute.
>>>>
>>>> If you have some TM which takes a string and prints an infinite number
>>>> of copies of that string to the tape (obviously, this is a non-halting
>>>> computation), then a UTM must also print and infinite number of copies
>>>> of that string to the tape. Would your SHD print an infinite number of
>>>> copies of string X when given a description of this TM and X as its
>>>> input? Unless the answer is 'yes', you're not dealing with a UTM.
>>>>
>>>> And since a UTM is defined by what it does rather than by the steps it
>>>> takes to do that, saying something acts as a UTM "until X" is entirely
>>>> meaningless.
>>>>
>>> Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle detector.
>>> You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a "modified
>>> UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is reasonable.
>>> And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the infinite cycle
>>> detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset of non-
>>> halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it can't
>>> be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat construct
>>> will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
>>>
>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>
> So what is the actual behavior of the actual simulated input <N><5> to Ha3?

From here on out I will totally every off topic reply.
I won't even tell you that I am ignoring it.

>
>> By this measure embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn is correct
>> and H(P,P) correctly returns false.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>> Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30053&group=comp.theory#30053

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:52:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cd5efecaf55482f711dc48f1c9b69dbc";
logging-data="4219"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jOgIwHVcqlEyhIWxQFsvAILPpTfUstvw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XByB3nUTdzDlLm1bavvIz/WI7X8=
sha1:7e+vTZhXVgJZpMmQUocw8GLEevg=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.6253a05e6fbbc98291a3.20220412005205BST.87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:52 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/10/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2022 4:41 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> The above means this:
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>> That's funny! You really have no idea what this notation means, do you?
>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H is a simulating halt decider that has a full UTM embedded
>>>>> within it. As soon as it sees that the pure UTM simulation of its
>>>>> input would never reach the final state of this input it aborts this
>>>>> simulation and rejects this non-halting input.
>>>>
>>>> So you had no business writing those two junk lines, did you? Or do you
>>>> really think that they are in some way compatible with that last
>>>> paragraph? Probably neither. I really think you see it much like
>>>> poetry. Meanings are supposed to be intuited from unusual, often
>>>> metaphorical, juxtapositions of symbols.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>> Still junk.
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
> own final state.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> reach its own final state.

Still junk. Mixing embedded_H and H. Also H.qy is a final state so
this is not the hat construction form Linz. Also uses triger word
"would". What matters is what is the case, not what would be the case.
But, much like a poem, I can a feeling for what you might mean -- it's
the same old reject is correct because of what would happen if H (and
it's embedded copy) where not the TMs that actually are.

To see why you are clearly wrong, just say what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
transitions to, and what string must be passed to H for H to tell us
whether Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts or not.

--
Ben.

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

<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30054&group=comp.theory#30054

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:55:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cd5efecaf55482f711dc48f1c9b69dbc";
logging-data="4219"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182f8tt5MtmrpciAur6j4H6n+fTvRdviBM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IUT7aEB1gsD4Z/sxvACylWVlziI=
sha1:5dbyTNy6ToJq09WfnJWEQhKajqc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.47050f17dbcd843b534b.20220412005502BST.87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:55 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:52 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/9/2022 5:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2022 7:20 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 4:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you won't answer two simple questions! Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I absolutely positively will not tolerate divergence from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validating my 17 years worth of work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you have no choice but to tolerate it. If someone wants to talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why you are wrong, they will do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wrong (for the C version of H) because H(P,P) == false but P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts. You are wrong about your TM H because H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qn, but Ĥ applied to <Ĥ> is a halting computation. (Feel free to deny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of these facts if the mood takes you.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed facts: (1) H(P,P) == false, (2) P(P) halts. You don't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>>> either (indeed they come from you).
>>>>>>>>>> At least you don't contend these facts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your new line in waffle is just an attempt to distract attention from a
>>>>>>>>>>>> very simple claim: that the wrong answer is the right one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Even Linz got this wrong because it is counter-intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs (not any damn
>>>>>>>>>>> thing else in the universe) to its own final state on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by these inputs
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's not counter intuitive, it's basic. Everyone knows this, though
>>>>>>>>>> it took you a while to get round to it. A halt decider accepts or
>>>>>>>>>> rejects a string based on the behaviour of the computation specified by
>>>>>>>>>> that string. Of course, you never got as far in my exercises as
>>>>>>>>>> specifying any TM that decides something on the basis of behaviour, so
>>>>>>>>>> you really don't know how it's actually done. That was, I thought, the
>>>>>>>>>> whole point of the exercises -- to see how TMs are specified to decide
>>>>>>>>>> properties of computations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have to actually pay attention to this,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Flip, flop! Back to being wrong about TMs rather than being wrong about
>>>>>>>> your old C junk. These uncontested facts: (1) H(P,P) == false, (2) P(P)
>>>>>>>> halts are why your H and P are wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are able to break the problem down to it micro component parts
>>>>>>> and carefully analyze each of these separately instead of simply
>>>>>>> slipping down the slide of intuition then you can see that I am
>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is true that the correct simulation input to H(P,P) cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach its own final state then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) is non-halting then
>>>>>> There is no "input to H(P,P)".
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct simulation of the input to H
>>>> Better. I still would not call it "input" (since these are C functions)
>>>> but you've got the hang of what am saying. Well done.
>>>>
>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach it final state thus is a non-halting
>>>>> sequence of configurations even if everyone and everything in the
>>>>> universe disagrees.
>>>>
>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>
>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>> own state.
>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>
>
> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
> its own final state.


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

<LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30055&group=comp.theory#30055

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:57:52 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:57:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XWAMIuCLGctem5j7vJOiYSD7IMeqgwjd9EhO8EvehrSaRazDIeGuQIUt0EfT3jS91abreHNshgDpbgP!uLgwIzHtk69vEQ0ifGZpfMz/fmgGxCAxC/QltK4ROHshPPJsEMGfpP4Sp4z1E19GzwrfHWpkm/uA
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: 4700
 by: olcott - Mon, 11 Apr 2022 23:57 UTC

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

The fact that I do not express myself perfectly does not freaking mean
that the key essence of all my ideas is not exactly correct.

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<5m35K.572395$7F2.392658@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30056&group=comp.theory#30056

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
correct halt deciding criteria ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lfydnQVIFeaZG87_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com>
<lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<_LadnYhM-LhtFMn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <_LadnYhM-LhtFMn_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <5m35K.572395$7F2.392658@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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:04:22 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4380
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:04 UTC

On 4/11/22 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>
>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>
>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will be
>>>> taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone points
>>>> out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to use the
>>>> broken notation?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>
>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all other
>>> goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>
>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish,
>
> My goal is to be understood to be essentially correct every other goal
> has 100,000-fold less priority.

Which you have failed at.

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

Right, and the DEFINITION of the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of the input to a Halt
Decider is the behavior of the computaiton it represents, which is the
equivalent of the processing of the input by an ACTUAL UTM.

>
> By this measure embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn is correct
> and H(P,P) correctly returns false.
>

Nope, because if H rejects its input, then the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR of that
input is to Halt, as the H embedded in that input rejecting its copy of
the input make this copy of the input halt.

Until you can show how different copies of the EXACT same machine/input
can do different things, you have just failed.

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

<H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30057&group=comp.theory#30057

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:08:00 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:07:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 164
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-S0CN1Bz7+Pa85ZNKmLXf4Jk4YTkKcSSn4x2hsD7xba9wX5ge9oTiFvf0UZHlQ1mHpIlaNgoWEFSIADr!vfxqM+w1ZGnYWX7kXgMWnPIFPzlbKEnXAsvEnMkzZEFeP0E8SfFTxdibQLrvAECnq03lAuhbP+2r
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: 9946
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:07 UTC

On 4/11/2022 6:55 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/10/2022 7:05 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:18 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 10:52 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2022 5:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/9/2022 7:20 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/8/2022 4:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you won't answer two simple questions! Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I absolutely positively will not tolerate divergence from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validating my 17 years worth of work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you have no choice but to tolerate it. If someone wants to talk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why you are wrong, they will do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are wrong (for the C version of H) because H(P,P) == false but P(P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts. You are wrong about your TM H because H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> qn, but Ĥ applied to <Ĥ> is a halting computation. (Feel free to deny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of these facts if the mood takes you.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradict this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed facts: (1) H(P,P) == false, (2) P(P) halts. You don't dispute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> either (indeed they come from you).
>>>>>>>>>>> At least you don't contend these facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your new line in waffle is just an attempt to distract attention from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very simple claim: that the wrong answer is the right one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even Linz got this wrong because it is counter-intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs (not any damn
>>>>>>>>>>>> thing else in the universe) to its own final state on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by these inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's not counter intuitive, it's basic. Everyone knows this, though
>>>>>>>>>>> it took you a while to get round to it. A halt decider accepts or
>>>>>>>>>>> rejects a string based on the behaviour of the computation specified by
>>>>>>>>>>> that string. Of course, you never got as far in my exercises as
>>>>>>>>>>> specifying any TM that decides something on the basis of behaviour, so
>>>>>>>>>>> you really don't know how it's actually done. That was, I thought, the
>>>>>>>>>>> whole point of the exercises -- to see how TMs are specified to decide
>>>>>>>>>>> properties of computations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have to actually pay attention to this,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Flip, flop! Back to being wrong about TMs rather than being wrong about
>>>>>>>>> your old C junk. These uncontested facts: (1) H(P,P) == false, (2) P(P)
>>>>>>>>> halts are why your H and P are wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are able to break the problem down to it micro component parts
>>>>>>>> and carefully analyze each of these separately instead of simply
>>>>>>>> slipping down the slide of intuition then you can see that I am
>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is true that the correct simulation input to H(P,P) cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own final state then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) is non-halting then
>>>>>>> There is no "input to H(P,P)".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The correct simulation of the input to H
>>>>> Better. I still would not call it "input" (since these are C functions)
>>>>> but you've got the hang of what am saying. Well done.
>>>>>
>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach it final state thus is a non-halting
>>>>>> sequence of configurations even if everyone and everything in the
>>>>>> universe disagrees.
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth is not determined by who does or does not agree with
>>>>> something. But to find the truth of the matter you must first stop
>>>>> talking literal nonsense. The arguments to H (what you call the
>>>>> "input") are two pointers. What does simulating two pointers mean?
>>>>> What you mean, I hope, is simulating calling the first pointer with the
>>>>> second as it's argument. That simulation, according to you, will halt
>>>>> (or "reach it's final state" in your flamboyant, sciencey, language).
>>>>> It will halt because the direct call P(P) halts. Everything here halts
>>>>> (according to you). That's why H is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> You simply are ignoring the actual execution trace that conclusively
>>>> proves that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach its final
>>>> own state.
>>> The traces that matter are the one of P(P) halting (you made the mistake
>>> of posting it once), and the one of H(P,P) return false (you posted that
>>> as well). You a free to retract any of these at any time, but until you
>>> do, your H is wrong by your own supplied traces.
>>>
>>
>> It is never the case that the simulated input to H(P,P) ever reaches
>> its own final state.
>
> Waffle. HP(P) halts so (P,P) == false is wrong. You can retract these
> facts (since they come from you in the first place). Until then, you've
> told us that your H is wrong.
>


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

<On35K.572396$7F2.371593@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30058&group=comp.theory#30058

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
deceitful bastard ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad> <8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me>
<__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me>
<5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me>
<TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>
<3YydnT_3g8k7pMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <3YydnT_3g8k7pMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <On35K.572396$7F2.371593@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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:06:11 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2779
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:06 UTC

On 4/11/22 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 21:56:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS INCORRECT.
>>
>> That is not quite true. Whenever somenthing is claimed there is a
>> possibility of disagreement. Every definition contains a claim: it
>> claims that something is defined. But sometimes there is a mistake
>> in a definition so that in reality nothing is defined.
>>
>> Mikko
>>
>
> In BASIC let X = 5,
> one is not free to disagree that X has the value of 5.
>

And it is not possible for YOU to disagree that the input <H^> <H^>
given to H represents a Halting Computation if H rejects this input,
since it represents the machine H^ applied to <H^> which halts when the
H in it rejects its input of <H^> <H^>.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ deceitful bastard ]

<Qo35K.572397$7F2.243252@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30059&group=comp.theory#30059

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
deceitful bastard ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad> <8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me>
<__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me>
<5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me>
<TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>
<3YydnT_3g8k7pMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t31fjh$lg8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<-cydncFUiYUM38n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <-cydncFUiYUM38n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <Qo35K.572397$7F2.243252@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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:07:16 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3087
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:07 UTC

On 4/11/22 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 9:56 AM, Python wrote:
>> Demented LIAR Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:56:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>
>>>> That is not quite true. Whenever somenthing is claimed there is a
>>>> possibility of disagreement. Every definition contains a claim: it
>>>> claims that something is defined. But sometimes there is a mistake
>>>> in a definition so that in reality nothing is defined.
>>>>
>>>> Mikko
>>>>
>>>
>>> In BASIC let X = 5,
>>> one is not free to disagree that X has the value of 5.
>>
>> This is not what you are doing.
>>
>> What you are doing is similar to claim "Let p be the greatest
>> prime number" and then claim that one is not free to disagree
>> that p exists.
>>
>
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>

Right, just as it is self-evident that this behavior for <H^> <H^> is
HALTING if H rejects it.

FAIL.

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

<sq35K.572398$7F2.521212@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30060&group=comp.theory#30060

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <IKg4K.443016$SeK9.363249@fx97.iad>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vg4nw5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9tydnQaOy_a2z87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87k0bw4hgi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zJqdnWuS9-Zh8s7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87r1632n6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <LeidnWJCD90dXcn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <sq35K.572398$7F2.521212@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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:09:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4758
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:09 UTC

On 4/11/22 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 6:52 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2022 7:00 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 4:41 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The above means this:
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* UTM ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>> That's funny!  You really have no idea what this notation means,
>>>>>> do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H is a simulating halt decider that has a full UTM embedded
>>>>>>> within it. As soon as it sees that the pure UTM simulation of its
>>>>>>> input would never reach the final state of this input it aborts this
>>>>>>> simulation and rejects this non-halting input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you had no business writing those two junk lines, did you?  Or
>>>>>> do you
>>>>>> really think that they are in some way compatible with that last
>>>>>> paragraph?  Probably neither.  I really think you see it much like
>>>>>> poetry.  Meanings are supposed to be intuited from unusual, often
>>>>>> metaphorical, juxtapositions of symbols.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>> Still junk.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach its
>>> own final state.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>> reach its own final state.
>>
>> Still junk.  Mixing embedded_H and H.  Also H.qy is a final state so
>> this is not the hat construction form Linz.  Also uses triger word
>> "would".  What matters is what is the case, not what would be the case.
>> But, much like a poem, I can a feeling for what you might mean -- it's
>> the same old reject is correct because of what would happen if H (and
>> it's embedded copy) where not the TMs that actually are.
>>
>> To see why you are clearly wrong, just say what state H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> transitions to, and what string must be passed to H for H to tell us
>> whether Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts or not.
>>
>
> The fact that I do not express myself perfectly does not freaking mean
> that the key essence of all my ideas is not exactly correct.
>
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>

And it is self-evident that the ACTUAL Behavior for the input <H^> <H^>
is HALTING if H rejects that input, from the DEFINITON of that behavior,
being the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> which halts if the copy of H in
it reject the input it is given of <H^> <H^>.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ deceitful bastard ]

<H8-dnVCrq8QeXsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30061&group=comp.theory#30061

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:10:43 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:10:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
deceitful bastard ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735im7zsl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jo2dnVwtnJHJbsz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me> <__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me> <5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me> <TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>
<3YydnT_3g8k7pMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t31fjh$lg8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<-cydncFUiYUM38n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<Qo35K.572397$7F2.243252@fx12.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <Qo35K.572397$7F2.243252@fx12.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <H8-dnVCrq8QeXsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 70
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vA5JyM8ownc8hI7Rp3fPxQy2GRrPb3Th1KSS62sjSTgVoaKUfz7uTHp9cXUmgh/CJO6OywzMcURS527!AMRVy/ZfLZAfVlCX9jixX9+KyZi00uki68/6DsZiXO0lEsk4fJ66VugBY39hmCOip8hFOM8gMhB9
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: 4585
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:10 UTC

On 4/11/2022 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/11/22 11:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/11/2022 9:56 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Demented LIAR Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2022 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:56:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> THE NOTATION IS A STIPULATIVE DEFINITION THUS DISAGREEMENT IS
>>>>>> INCORRECT.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not quite true. Whenever somenthing is claimed there is a
>>>>> possibility of disagreement. Every definition contains a claim: it
>>>>> claims that something is defined. But sometimes there is a mistake
>>>>> in a definition so that in reality nothing is defined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mikko
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In BASIC let X = 5,
>>>> one is not free to disagree that X has the value of 5.
>>>
>>> This is not what you are doing.
>>>
>>> What you are doing is similar to claim "Let p be the greatest
>>> prime number" and then claim that one is not free to disagree
>>> that p exists.
>>>
>>
>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>
>
> Right, just as it is self-evident that this behavior for <H^> <H^> is
> HALTING if H rejects it.
>

It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.

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

// The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.

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

Therefore H(P,P) == false is correct.

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

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<1082878e-2762-420e-b37d-b97a61eaf645n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30062&group=comp.theory#30062

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:c13:0:b0:69c:231e:5b48 with SMTP id 19-20020a370c13000000b0069c231e5b48mr1443412qkm.278.1649722369466;
Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:190a:b0:69c:3ee7:7c8d with SMTP id
bj10-20020a05620a190a00b0069c3ee77c8dmr96120qkb.743.1649722369301; Mon, 11
Apr 2022 17:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <DMCdne820pf5Icn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me> <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me> <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me> <a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me> <oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t31sld$t8a$1@dont-email.me> <26bf6f66-8ff9-44b5-8985-468130aec0c8n@googlegroups.com>
<3tednTj7XpEREsn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <9f39f7b0-6d49-44d2-8d21-38a94a58f3cen@googlegroups.com>
<DMCdne820pf5Icn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1082878e-2762-420e-b37d-b97a61eaf645n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:12:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 191
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:12 UTC

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 7:40:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 6:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 4:29:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/11/2022 3:19 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 11 April 2022 at 19:39:44 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>> On 2022-04-11 12:17, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
> >>>>>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
> >>>>>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
> >>>>>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
> >>>>>>>>>> use the broken notation?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> André
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
> >>>>>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
> >>>>>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
> >>>>>>>> illiterate crank.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
> >>>>>>>>> its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
> >>>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
> >>>>>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
> >>>>>> embedded in Ĥ"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM that
> >>>>> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
> >>>>> this simulation would never end.
> >>>> This claim is simply nonsense.
> >>>>
> >>>> A UTM is *defined* as a Turing Machine which takes as its input the
> >>>> description of a computation and computes what the result of that
> >>>> computation would be. While this is normally done via something which
> >>>> might be described as 'simulation', that isn't part of the definition of
> >>>> a UTM. UTMs are defined in terms of the *result* which they compute.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you have some TM which takes a string and prints an infinite number
> >>>> of copies of that string to the tape (obviously, this is a non-halting
> >>>> computation), then a UTM must also print and infinite number of copies
> >>>> of that string to the tape. Would your SHD print an infinite number of
> >>>> copies of string X when given a description of this TM and X as its
> >>>> input? Unless the answer is 'yes', you're not dealing with a UTM.
> >>>>
> >>>> And since a UTM is defined by what it does rather than by the steps it
> >>>> takes to do that, saying something acts as a UTM "until X" is entirely
> >>>> meaningless.
> >>>>
> >>> Not really. PO's idea is to have a simulator with an infinite cycle detector.
> >>> You would achieve this by modifying a UTM, so describing it as a "modified
> >>> UTM", or "acts like a UTM until it detects an infinite cycle", is reasonable.
> >>> And such a machine is a fairly powerful halt decider. Even if the infinite cycle
> >>> detector isn't very sophisticated, it will still catch a large subset of non-
> >>> halting machines. But it won't catch all non-halting machines, and it can't
> >>> be scaled up by adding features until it is perfect. And Linz's H_Hat construct
> >>> will always defeat it, which PO refuses to accept.
> >>>
> >> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> >> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
> >
> > So what is the actual behavior of the actual simulated input <N><5> to Ha3?
> From here on out I will totally every off topic reply.
> I won't even tell you that I am ignoring it.

It is not off topic because it perfectly illustrates that your "self-evident" criteria is nothing of the sort.

By your measure, the actual behavior of the actual simulated input <N><5> to Ha3 is non-halting and is therefore the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of Ha3, therefore it is correct.

But we've shown that that isn't the case because Ha7 accepts <N><5>. Therefore this:

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

Has been demonstrated to be FALSE.

Which also means that this:

embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

Which can also be written (since embedded_H is the same as H, and since H aborts we can call it Ha) like this

Ha ⟨Ĥa⟩ ⟨Ĥa⟩ ⊢* Ha.qn

Is also incorrect because Hb, which has the same halt status criteria as Ha but defers aborting for k steps, does this:

Hb ⟨Ĥa⟩ ⟨Ĥa⟩ ⊢* Hb.qy

And as you said before:

---
A simulating halt decider must continue to simulate its input until it
has proof that this simulation would never end.
---


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

<tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30063&group=comp.theory#30063

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx36.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me> <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me> <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me> <a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad> <9872ba45-a089-4656-8556-61628ef29d37n@googlegroups.com> <KKU4K.66097$Kdf.33908@fx96.iad> <b92d9636-7d21-48e4-8c43-4b56113716ben@googlegroups.com> <8JSdnbIbCIFDqsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <FD25K.418246$iK66.247352@fx46.iad> <_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 161
Message-ID: <tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:14:21 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8646
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:14 UTC

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


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

<mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30064&group=comp.theory#30064

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:17:46 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:17:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad>
<9872ba45-a089-4656-8556-61628ef29d37n@googlegroups.com>
<KKU4K.66097$Kdf.33908@fx96.iad>
<b92d9636-7d21-48e4-8c43-4b56113716ben@googlegroups.com>
<8JSdnbIbCIFDqsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FD25K.418246$iK66.247352@fx46.iad>
<_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 166
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QlwXQ7TSHkr9DoOPEsosYzKdsn+mqFTyeQqBz/8RZMIrICjgtFnZiAIy8Pu9+9k4FzOQx2Wqkrt3tMf!0GuZwXIQGElSzqs2F84PY043Vi2NmsOogXh8vuHvq2+d+J21kquLVyk8pbKiI/N9T2Z/GnP51I47
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: 9021
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:17 UTC

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


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

<ZC35K.334509$Lbb6.108327@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30065&group=comp.theory#30065

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder5.feed.usenet.farm!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx45.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <c02ff006-f5ca-46dd-888a-9e1d5777f91cn@googlegroups.com> <lLudnTXjW7xRGs7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com> <taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com> <h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com> <5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com> <JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com> <maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me> <KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me> <4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me> <a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me> <oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <ZC35K.334509$Lbb6.108327@fx45.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:22:21 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7278
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:22 UTC

On 4/11/22 2:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with Ben
>>>>>>>>> for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic paths are
>>>>>>>>> trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the notation
>>>>>> you write above is meaningless without a condition specified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing to
>>>>>> use the broken notation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>
>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would reach
>>>>> its own final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would never
>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>
>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
>>
>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>> embedded in Ĥ"
>>
>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
>
> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
>
> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM that
> it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has proof that
> this simulation would never end.

No it doesn't, as if H gave a non-halting input to a UTM, that UTM would
never HALT, BY THE DEFINTION of what a UTM is. This means that your Halt
Decider can not return Non-Halting for any input if gives to the UTM
inside it.

FAIL.

>
>>
>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>
>> The "ultimate measure" is whether the computation represented by the
>> input is finite. That's the definition of the halting problem. Any
>> other metric is invalid unless it can be shown to be equivalent to
>> this, and since you acknowledge that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does halt, your
>> metric is NOT equivalent. So you are working on the wrong problem.
>>
>
> The ultimate measure of the behavior of the input is the actual freaking
> behavior of the actual freaking input.

Right, and the actual behavior of the input <H^> <H^> is DEFINED to be
the behavior of H^ applied to <H^> or equivalently UTM applied to <H^>
<H^> (and that is a REAL UTM, not the 'almost' UTM of H that aborts).
>
>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is
>>> a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
>>> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>
>> And from the very article you cite: "Some epistemologists [many, in
>> fact] deny that any proposition can be self-evident." So just claiming
>> that something is 'self-evident' isn't a sufficient basis for an
>> argument -- you'd need to first establish that such propositions are
>> even possible.
>
> self-evident is stipulated to mean any expression of language that can
> be verified as completely true entirely on the basis of its meaning.

Ok, but the meaning of Halting is DEFINED (i.e the meaning of the words)
to be based on the behavior of the ACTUAL Turing Machine, so in this
case H^ applied to <H^> which halts if H rejects <H^> <H^>, so H is
NEVER correct to do so,
>
>>
>> More importantly, we're not talking about epistemology. We're talking
>> about the halting problem. "self-evident propositions" play no role in
>> formal systems or the theory of computation.
>>
>> Generally, it's not a good idea to import notions from one field into
>> another unless you can actually justify their applicability to that
>> field.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> The meaning of words is ultimately anchored in epistemology.
>

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

<QE35K.334510$Lbb6.239583@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30066&group=comp.theory#30066

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.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!fx45.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5b53b45b-7764-4041-9ead-2786867bff5dn@googlegroups.com>
<taidndNrW_EeF87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<4ea676fc-5cb0-47f2-99bd-8991538f474dn@googlegroups.com>
<h9ydnfH1Ju7UEc7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<45e289de-6e4c-4a94-8fee-6d73bf596994n@googlegroups.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31q70$88s$1@dont-email.me>
<oaGdnaDO85gr7cn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t31sld$t8a$1@dont-email.me>
<2YudnQiBdLVz4Mn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <2YudnQiBdLVz4Mn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <QE35K.334510$Lbb6.239583@fx45.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:24:21 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7596
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:24 UTC

On 4/11/22 3:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 1:39 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-11 12:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2022 12:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:26 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 22:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 11:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 21:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 9:57 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-10 20:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is too far off topic. I have been talking circles with
>>>>>>>>>>> Ben for 17 years. We now must talk in hierarchies, cyclic
>>>>>>>>>>> paths are trimmed off of the decision tree.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we're back to the meaningless notation again.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are truly incapable of learning anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't remember the details between posts? Everyone else can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can remember. But that doesn't change the fact that the
>>>>>>>> notation you write above is meaningless without a condition
>>>>>>>> specified.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You claim you want to know how to present your ideas so you will
>>>>>>>> be taken seriously. I'm trying to help with that. When someone
>>>>>>>> points out an error in your notation, why insist on continuing
>>>>>>>> to use the broken notation?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a single primary goal that supersedes and overrides all
>>>>>>> other goals, get mutual agreement on my current stage of progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thought your goal was to eventually publish, which requires
>>>>>> learning to use notation properly so you don't look like an
>>>>>> illiterate crank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would
>>>>>>> reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>> If the correctly simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H would
>>>>>>> never reach its own final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H correctly rejects its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it doesn't, because a correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is embedded
>>>>> in Ĥ is the only thing that is being examined.
>>>>
>>>> There is no "correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by the copy of H that is
>>>> embedded in Ĥ"
>>>>
>>>> H is not a simulator. It is a halt decider.
>>>
>>> That is a quite stupid thing to say.
>>>
>>> Every simulating halt decider (SHD) contains a fully functional UTM
>>> that it uses to continue to simulate its input until this SHD has
>>> proof that this simulation would never end.
>>
>> This claim is simply nonsense.
>>
>
> No you are simply a jack ass.
>
> In computer science, a universal Turing machine (UTM) is a Turing
> machine that simulates an arbitrary Turing machine on arbitrary input.
> The universal machine essentially achieves this by reading both the
> description of the machine to be simulated as well as the input to that
> machine from its own tape.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine

Wikipedia may be a useful resource but it is NOT a formal source of
definition.

The FORMAL DEFINITON of a UTM is a Turing Machine that EXACTLY
replicates the behavior of the computation it is provided via a
representation.

>
>> A UTM is *defined* as a Turing Machine which takes as its input the
>> description of a computation and computes what the result of that
>> computation would be. While this is normally done via something which
>> might be described as 'simulation', that isn't part of the definition
>> of a UTM. UTMs are defined in terms of the *result* which they compute.
>>
>> If you have some TM which takes a string and prints an infinite number
>> of copies of that string to the tape (obviously, this is a non-halting
>> computation), then a UTM must also print and infinite number of copies
>> of that string to the tape. Would your SHD print an infinite number of
>> copies of string X when given a description of this TM and X as its
>> input? Unless the answer is 'yes', you're not dealing with a UTM.
>>
>> And since a UTM is defined by what it does rather than by the steps it
>> takes to do that, saying something acts as a UTM "until X" is entirely
>> meaningless.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
>>>>> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> The "ultimate measure" is whether the computation represented by the
>>>> input is finite. That's the definition of the halting problem. Any
>>>> other metric is invalid unless it can be shown to be equivalent to
>>>> this, and since you acknowledge that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does halt,
>>>> your metric is NOT equivalent. So you are working on the wrong problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ultimate measure of the behavior of the input is the actual
>>> freaking behavior of the actual freaking input.
>>
>> That's not how the halting problem is defined. A halt decider, by
>> definition, is a TM which solves the halting problem.
>>
>
> You are such a complete jack ass. I am stopping here.
>
>

Guess you have run out of dumb excuses.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ deceitful bastard ]

<vL35K.572399$7F2.191155@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30067&group=comp.theory#30067

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.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/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
deceitful bastard ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me> <__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me> <5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me> <TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>
<3YydnT_3g8k7pMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t31fjh$lg8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<-cydncFUiYUM38n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<Qo35K.572397$7F2.243252@fx12.iad>
<H8-dnVCrq8QeXsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <H8-dnVCrq8QeXsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <vL35K.572399$7F2.191155@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: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:31:27 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5100
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:31 UTC

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

Then you aren't running the right test.

The CORRECT SIMULATION is one that never aborts

All you have proved is that your H decides that it does;t ITSELF Halt,
and is incorrect about that.

It has been shown that the ACTUAL running of P(P) as is an actual
CORRECT simulation of P,P does halt, as the H(P,P) it calls will
(incorrectly) abort its own simulation, and return non-halting to P
which causes it to Halt.

FAIL.

>
> [00000966](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00000969](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02)  7402            jz 0000096f
> [0000096d](02)  ebfe            jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000970](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>
> Therefore H(P,P) == false is correct.

Nope, not if you are talking Halting, maybe it is a correct POOP decider.

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

Right, so look at the behavior of the ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATION of the
input, not the incorrect/partial simulation by H.

FAIL.

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ deceitful bastard ]

<9OSdndgebdPUVMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30068&group=comp.theory#30068

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:35:21 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:35:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
deceitful bastard ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub17v30.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <37adnec3mr9vlM__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7x7q0s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <dNmdnb6Nh5rCvs__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vh55fr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tqGdncKXisf8Z8__nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87h7706hlc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lKadnVFptvz3ms7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vags$upn$1@dont-email.me> <__SdnY2URdjyss7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vcf3$e5r$1@dont-email.me> <5-Wdna1taonTq87_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2vder$o7e$1@dont-email.me> <TK2dnWQyY8Ngp87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6dmdnVK50fD32M7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2vje4$7c2$1@dont-email.me>
<9tydnQGOy_YHz87_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t30mkg$vpn$1@dont-email.me>
<3YydnT_3g8k7pMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t31fjh$lg8$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<-cydncFUiYUM38n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<Qo35K.572397$7F2.243252@fx12.iad>
<H8-dnVCrq8QeXsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<vL35K.572399$7F2.191155@fx12.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <vL35K.572399$7F2.191155@fx12.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9OSdndgebdPUVMn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 69
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-IqMNU1xM51QhX2h/OhhxkWBJlKPmLUPuVm85nxgpNtLLSQ70gg4x6aayKyJ0000IViul9IfydjRBxv0!jRHHWOUmakX1qlZBtxuYxXesfxQsCgavqM05/TaTBx86DoEANVMFMYbXK2Lpj79YLS1l1xU8cGNk
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: 4602
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:35 UTC

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

The question is: Would the correct simulation of the input ever reach
machine address [00000970] ???

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<WP35K.508442$Rza5.83875@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30069&group=comp.theory#30069

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx47.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad>
<9872ba45-a089-4656-8556-61628ef29d37n@googlegroups.com>
<KKU4K.66097$Kdf.33908@fx96.iad>
<b92d9636-7d21-48e4-8c43-4b56113716ben@googlegroups.com>
<8JSdnbIbCIFDqsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FD25K.418246$iK66.247352@fx46.iad>
<_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
<mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <WP35K.508442$Rza5.83875@fx47.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:36:11 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9556
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:36 UTC

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


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

<9OSdndsebdPSV8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30070&group=comp.theory#30070

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:39:43 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:39:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
self-evident truth ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5dadnZhWFrJDEM7_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<9656c396-2b0c-43a7-9e96-aed4512ab419n@googlegroups.com>
<JvSdncclOLmcD87_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6190086f-8a35-4aa7-bafe-86c8055fb8d0n@googlegroups.com>
<maednRn7IZ4_Cc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t305f9$odp$1@dont-email.me>
<KcqdnXkO6ddoBM7_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t309pq$enf$1@dont-email.me>
<4b6dnW0wp5riNs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t30al9$l36$1@dont-email.me>
<a92dnbkTF6PmMs7_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yUT4K.247157$H_t7.149997@fx40.iad>
<9872ba45-a089-4656-8556-61628ef29d37n@googlegroups.com>
<KKU4K.66097$Kdf.33908@fx96.iad>
<b92d9636-7d21-48e4-8c43-4b56113716ben@googlegroups.com>
<8JSdnbIbCIFDqsn_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<FD25K.418246$iK66.247352@fx46.iad>
<_Z6dnfgoU6OyKsn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<tv35K.70656$e%.64532@fx36.iad>
<mYmdnaA9c4G3WMn_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<WP35K.508442$Rza5.83875@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <WP35K.508442$Rza5.83875@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9OSdndsebdPSV8n_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 184
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1Px0IluFI1a6SmmPm285SpMexo8rnRzs1t1e1IO9Sceo0rF3uPsU+xvKsUZa8cU2ncbTiSuVP9/Od4g!/hTY7jVokx2GtCV/CuCrKSQIGAqykkNttEiMU/FLfGJeFy6A1A/NEPEJwoyG/Dt6UNhC/M05D3Al
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: 9855
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:39 UTC

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


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

<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30071&group=comp.theory#30071

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:50:40 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:50:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="beec9bbee9bdbd5b50188a314af54e6b";
logging-data="27338"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fZ08bPvbi9BI8avjl6hAi"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/Ev5FSZ8R0E5iFUSNQQyZWu0vVo=
In-Reply-To: <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:50 UTC

On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:

> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>
> _P()
> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax
> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx
> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>
> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.

But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it has
the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator). So either
you've completely fabricated your trace, or the trace you are showing is
for a different program than the one you are talking about. Either way,
it cannot possibly support your claim.

And you don't show anything about what actually *happens* at 826.

You don't show the code which performs this abortion. Nor the code which
allegedly matches a pattern.

> [00000966](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00000969](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
> [0000096b](02)  7402            jz 0000096f

Without showing the code to the call at 826, how on earth are we
supposed to know whether this branch is taken or not?

> [0000096d](02)  ebfe            jmp 0000096d
> [0000096f](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000970](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000970]
>
> It is self-evident that the actual behavior of the actual simulated
> input is the ULTIMATE MEASURE of the correctness of any halt decider.

It isn't evident at all. You don't provide a complete trace. And a trace
is not a proof.

André

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

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

<X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30072&group=comp.theory#30072

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:52:56 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 19:52:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87bkxb9tc9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <h4ydnXCGgtZONs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee268n4f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <8qOdna7OrqepBsz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrh7tr3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <74KdnQt1sMVb3M__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87mtgt541v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <op-dncDOwP0Knc7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ik63ip.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NOCdnZKexLqX0c7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee244h7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <N-adnUIFw_v06M7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lewb2n1l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <H8-dnVGrq8R9X8n_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t32id1$qma$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <X4-dnQGRJqf1UMn_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 27
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wozBAw0svRkzhV5N1pO5OS+vCnVvFoOt2AqhcxOHXGUU3EaIBbFlW8F6Uzzyfkx2ZL3n607+In6Np5I!V50lQ7w0tpBXnSHuDDw7Jil+vMLfZCiUSVlbwATt+822KUh0uIC6KpSLh5j+rrT5rtJZoSUzQWy8
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: 3242
 by: olcott - Tue, 12 Apr 2022 00:52 UTC

On 4/11/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-11 18:07, olcott wrote:
>
>> It is the case that the simulated input never reaches its [00000970]
>> machine address, no waffle there merely an easily verified fact.
>>
>> _P()
>> [00000956](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000957](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000959](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [0000095c](01)  50              push eax // push P
>> [0000095d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00000960](01)  51              push ecx // push P
>> [00000961](05)  e8c0feffff      call 00000826 // H(P,P)
>>
>> // The above (as simulated input) keeps repeating until aborted.
>
> But the above shows a *direct* call, not a call to a simulator (it has
> the wrong number of arguments if it is a call to a simulator).
I will provide more detail for you.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor