Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX. -- Stephan Zielinski


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

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

Pages:123456789101112
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ IP address: 46.165.242.75 abuse ]

<stfit6$ini$3@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26264&group=comp.theory#26264

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: gsmit...@hotmail.com (Greg Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ IP address:
46.165.242.75 abuse ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 19:41:26 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <stfit6$ini$3@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<a6adneLIPaTubWv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<mWCJJ.57596$zV.23696@fx43.iad>
<ZrSdnQfr6bvYnGr8nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HwmKJ.2196$dln7.358@fx03.iad>
<dNOdnau9-eckaGT8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcu1k$5pp$1@dont-email.me>
<stcvjs$cl8$1@dont-email.me> <std079$en5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ca-dnSY9dvwqPmf8nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stehv3$pl$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<stei81$8n7$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: gsmith98@hotmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="19186"; posting-host="42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Greg Smith - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 03:41 UTC

On 2/2/2022 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 12:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 7:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:59, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Shut up idiot.
>>
>
> User at IP address: 46.165.242.75 must be blocked for abuse

Shut up idiot.

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

<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26265&group=comp.theory#26265

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 21:50:21 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 21:50:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <osEJJ.11004$uP.10312@fx16.iad>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 137
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Hi6Sk7WU1xndvZ4dsiC3yd6aWq2xCWqSQnOd5FLTB+cNSNBisXxz6v/LGLNEAP3jRUVaDXCOS241Oqc!hma3JsATm/H36MJ+bvh1OPRJISR1j12kCcZ7cluLEP/hk5Jp1JGnDjBf29kplv4lOUBHgAAAl1SG
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: 8881
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 03:50 UTC

On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a simulator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of
>>>>>>>>>> the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did
>>>>>>>>>> not say it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben
>>>>>>>>>> always did. He never paid any attention to the actual
>>>>>>>>>> substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state then
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an input.
>>>>>>>>> It takes as its input a finite string which represents that
>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to talk
>>>>>>>>> about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not the
>>>>>>>> finite string machine description specifies a finite or infinite
>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for determining
>>>>>>>> this is the actual behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs is
>>>>>>>> moot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H
>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>>>>>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or
>>>>>> reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,
>>>>
>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine description
>> of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by this
>> machine description it is just like saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>>
>
> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description' has an
> actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual behavior of
> the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
expectations then expectations must be incorrect.

Here is what it actually does:
These steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...


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

<stfld3$182v$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26266&group=comp.theory#26266

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: gsmit...@hotmail.com (Greg Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 20:24:02 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <stfld3$182v$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: gsmith98@hotmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="41055"; posting-host="42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Greg Smith - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:24 UTC

On 2/2/2022 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of
>>>>>>>>>>> the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did
>>>>>>>>>>> not say it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben
>>>>>>>>>>> always did. He never paid any attention to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which represents
>>>>>>>>>> that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to
>>>>>>>>>> talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not
>>>>>>>>> the finite string machine description specifies a finite or
>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for
>>>>>>>>> determining this is the actual behavior of the simulated finite
>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs
>>>>>>>>> is moot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H
>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>>>>>>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or
>>>>>>> reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,
>>>>>
>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that a
>>> black cat is not a cat.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description' has
>> an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual
>> behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
> expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>
> Here is what it actually does:
> These steps would keep repeating:
>   Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>   Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>   Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...


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

<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26268&group=comp.theory#26268

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<9P6dnTtqj-DZhmr8nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@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: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 23:42:19 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 9960
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:42 UTC

On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence of
>>>>>>>>>>> the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I did
>>>>>>>>>>> not say it exactly according to conventions. The is what Ben
>>>>>>>>>>> always did. He never paid any attention to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which represents
>>>>>>>>>> that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless to
>>>>>>>>>> talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not
>>>>>>>>> the finite string machine description specifies a finite or
>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for
>>>>>>>>> determining this is the actual behavior of the simulated finite
>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs
>>>>>>>>> is moot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H
>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a halt
>>>>>>> decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept or
>>>>>>> reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would do,
>>>>>
>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that a
>>> black cat is not a cat.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description' has
>> an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual
>> behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
> expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>
> Here is what it actually does:
> These steps would keep repeating:
>   Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>   Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>   Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...


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

<stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26269&group=comp.theory#26269

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 22:50:06 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:50:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b612f85aae1580d8a6f89a8f8f6d5c9f";
logging-data="17107"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/TZ0aUQ6hmrAm3Fk1L7teH"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GHiqHYhivmpyR1o7LK3vkRLnh7U=
In-Reply-To: <M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 04:50 UTC

On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> did not say it exactly according to conventions. The is what
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben always did. He never paid any attention to the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which represents
>>>>>>>>>>> that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>> to talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not
>>>>>>>>>> the finite string machine description specifies a finite or
>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for
>>>>>>>>>> determining this is the actual behavior of the simulated
>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs
>>>>>>>>>> is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct from H
>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a
>>>>>>>> halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept
>>>>>>>> or reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents would
>>>>>>> do,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that a
>>>> black cat is not a cat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description' has
>>> an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual
>>> behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
>> expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>
>> Here is what it actually does:
>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>
> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its simulation
> and thus never give an answer.
>


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

<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26270&group=comp.theory#26270

 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!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx01.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <ecFJJ.19021$mS1.7877@fx10.iad>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 159
Message-ID: <asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 00:09:26 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 9838
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 05:09 UTC

On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place where you attempt to publish your results will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say it exactly according to conventions. The is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what Ben always did. He never paid any attention to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless terminological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse. "Its simulated input" is only meaningful when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> construed as meaning the simulation of the computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless to talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>> the finite string machine description specifies a finite or
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for
>>>>>>>>>>> determining this is the actual behavior of the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to inputs
>>>>>>>>>>> is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>> from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied
>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of this
>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a
>>>>>>>>> halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept
>>>>>>>>> or reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the words.
>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that a
>>>>> black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description'
>>>> has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual
>>>> behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
>>> expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>
>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>
>
> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>
>


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

<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26271&group=comp.theory#26271

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 23:24:41 -0600
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2022 23:24:39 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<sMCdnTPlr-FDvWr8nZ2dnUU7-KXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 165
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zjK+pBwuuBOlC5Df4KvYAniQQR2ts4MsATCRL4hrk2cPpWdPw/4vALhfgOhRVY8Jndx7QYBp0WNIeJu!kuI+YjmcsH64L2Nncsymtha0DJ6hogrbPmdoAC6069QoEl/vKoQzLrcAJvNQfLkKqUXteUZ/vKor
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: 10419
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 05:24 UTC

On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any place where you attempt to publish your results will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the essence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the basis that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not say it exactly according to conventions. The is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what Ben always did. He never paid any attention to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the computation REPRESENTED by the input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless to talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>> the finite string machine description specifies a finite or
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate basis for
>>>>>>>>>>>> determining this is the actual behavior of the simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a
>>>>>>>>>> halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an accept
>>>>>>>>>> or reject state (here is the part that you two don't understand):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the
>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that
>>>>>> a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description'
>>>>> has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the actual
>>>>> behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating, RIGHT?
>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not meet
>>>> expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>
>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>
>>
>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>
>>
>
> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>
That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number of
steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above are
plenty enough for it to be recogized.


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

<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26272&group=comp.theory#26272

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx43.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <7FFJJ.29151$541.18496@fx35.iad>
<st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me> <ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 184
Message-ID: <AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.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: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 06:50:55 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 10981
X-Original-Bytes: 10847
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 11:50 UTC

On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the input to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any place where you attempt to publish your results will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated input cannot possibly reach any final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then embedded_H is necessarily correct to transition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of this simulated finite string is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless to talk about simulating a finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the finite string machine description specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The ultimate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis for determining this is the actual behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily correct for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing else in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow distinct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt status of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a
>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>>> accept or reject state (here is the part that you two don't
>>>>>>>>>>> understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified by
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the
>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>>>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying that
>>>>>>> a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description'
>>>>>> has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the
>>>>>> actual behavior of the machine whose description it is simulating,
>>>>>> RIGHT?
>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>
>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>>
> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number of
> steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above are
> plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>


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

<stgqsh$t7q$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26274&group=comp.theory#26274

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hsmith1...@hotmail.com (Hank Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:03:44 -0800
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <stgqsh$t7q$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
<BL-dnU3GsYk-fmb8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Reply-To: hsmith1729@hotmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="29946"; posting-host="42V55DPF/EHESwy7gmIc+w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Hank Smith - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:03 UTC

On 2/3/2022 6:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

Shut up idiot.

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

<YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26288&group=comp.theory#26288

 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!peer02.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ dodgy double
talk ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
<BL-dnU3GsYk-fmb8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <BL-dnU3GsYk-fmb8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@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: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 18:36:23 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 11362
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:36 UTC

On 2/3/22 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any place where you attempt to publish your results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attention to the actual substance of what I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly reach any final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then embedded_H is necessarily correct to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this simulated finite string is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely meaningless to talk about simulating a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the finite string machine description specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept or reject state (here is the part that you two don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified
>>>>>>>>>>> by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the
>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by this machine description it is just like
>>>>>>>>> saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>> description' has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must
>>>>>>>> match the actual behavior of the machine whose description it is
>>>>>>>> simulating, RIGHT?
>>>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>>>>
>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above
>>> are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>
>>
>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>> recognized)
>
> Then embedded_H has conclusively proved that its simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> cannot possibly ever reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn even in an infinite number of
> simulated steps thus meeting the Linz definition of a sequence of
> configurations that never halt.
>
> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters
> a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ]

<S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26289&group=comp.theory#26289

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 17:54:27 -0600
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 17:54:26 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
<BL-dnU3GsYk-fmb8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 221
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-3IpGupjG0xVCouRZ6ZL8S5N10gaAZakEcynXIh9iA5oWXdVDaa3HSsNymr/Ui334PHsE6BL3vBDs5+M!5tZxqUahHsGa8VY0KRP/59FZq6W45Q1KdiJ+Ai/lv5IRXJIGD5DxUI1xKqOrM9JLJ7aqgYfvnhP9
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: 12709
 by: olcott - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:54 UTC

On 2/3/2022 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/22 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And any place where you attempt to publish your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results will be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attention to the actual substance of what I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly reach any final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then embedded_H is necessarily correct to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this simulated finite string is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely meaningless to talk about simulating a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the finite string machine description specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept or reject state (here is the part that you two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified
>>>>>>>>>>>> by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by this machine description it is just like
>>>>>>>>>> saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>> description' has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must
>>>>>>>>> match the actual behavior of the machine whose description it
>>>>>>>>> is simulating, RIGHT?
>>>>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>
>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown
>>>> above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>> recognized)
>>
>> Then embedded_H has conclusively proved that its simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> cannot possibly ever reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn even in an infinite number of
>> simulated steps thus meeting the Linz definition of a sequence of
>> configurations that never halt.
>>
>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>
>
> No, it hasn't, because I just showed you that if H -> H.Qn then the
> computation H^ <H^> Halts.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ]

<J%ZKJ.5310$979a.4687@fx14.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26290&group=comp.theory#26290

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx14.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
<BL-dnU3GsYk-fmb8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@fx47.iad>
<S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 239
Message-ID: <J%ZKJ.5310$979a.4687@fx14.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: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 18:59:35 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 12950
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:59 UTC

On 2/3/22 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And any place where you attempt to publish your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results will be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paid any attention to the actual substance of what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider embedded_H and embedded_H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines that its simulated input cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this simulated finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely meaningless to talk about simulating a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not the finite string machine description specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and machines not having inputs the distinction relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an accept or reject state (here is the part that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two don't understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents would do,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by this machine description it is just
>>>>>>>>>>> like saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>>> description' has an actual meaning, in that the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> must match the actual behavior of the machine whose
>>>>>>>>>> description it is simulating, RIGHT?
>>>>>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence
>>>>>>> this conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any
>>>>>>> UTM).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown
>>>>> above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>> recognized)
>>>
>>> Then embedded_H has conclusively proved that its simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> cannot possibly ever reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn even in an infinite number of
>>> simulated steps thus meeting the Linz definition of a sequence of
>>> configurations that never halt.
>>>
>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>>> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>
>>
>> No, it hasn't, because I just showed you that if H -> H.Qn then the
>> computation H^ <H^> Halts.
>>
>
> As long as the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
> then embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ]

<2qWdnfVqqbdX8mH8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26292&group=comp.theory#26292

 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: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 18:14:02 -0600
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 18:14:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <2qWdnfVqqbdX8mH8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 182
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5Vq+KxkDJLq49lhQNizTYT7tpGuCo8EXgtlhy4tdH/Q/QR58+zuz2y77aiXq9SA4I/c/JNrJhmhdQP9!DOrgDaiJKqivkn5fbA8YKWKi8zT+bTPVCPz1BHgSqbT5p5phPSWt5jhLc/Blja0iVli36zaFjHLb
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: 11155
 by: olcott - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 00:14 UTC

On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any place where you attempt to publish your results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attention to the actual substance of what I was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly reach any final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then embedded_H is necessarily correct to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this simulated finite string is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely meaningless to talk about simulating a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the finite string machine description specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis for determining this is the actual behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and nothing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept or reject state (here is the part that you two don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified
>>>>>>>>>> by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>>>>>> specified by this machine description it is just like saying
>>>>>>>> that a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine description'
>>>>>>> has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must match the
>>>>>>> actual behavior of the machine whose description it is
>>>>>>> simulating, RIGHT?
>>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>
>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>>>
>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number of
>> steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above are
>> plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>
>
> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
> recognized)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ]

<Ys0LJ.7641$8V_7.621@fx04.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26297&group=comp.theory#26297

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
<2qWdnfVqqbdX8mH8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <2qWdnfVqqbdX8mH8nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 215
Message-ID: <Ys0LJ.7641$8V_7.621@fx04.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 21:47:18 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 12450
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 02:47 UTC

On 2/3/22 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any place where you attempt to publish your results
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never paid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any attention to the actual substance of what I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H and embedded_H correctly determines that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input cannot possibly reach any final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then embedded_H is necessarily correct to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transition to Ĥ.qn indicating that its simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this simulated finite string is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely meaningless to talk about simulating a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the finite string machine description specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines not having inputs the distinction relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and somehow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs to an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept or reject state (here is the part that you two don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input represents
>>>>>>>>>>>> would do,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior specified
>>>>>>>>>>> by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the
>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by this machine description it is just like
>>>>>>>>> saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>> description' has an actual meaning, in that the simulation must
>>>>>>>> match the actual behavior of the machine whose description it is
>>>>>>>> simulating, RIGHT?
>>>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>>>>
>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above
>>> are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>
>>
>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>> recognized)
>
> At that point right there embedded_H has complete proof that the correct
> simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn.
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ]

<Lx0LJ.8455$V7da.5903@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26298&group=comp.theory#26298

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
<BL-dnU3GsYk-fmb8nZ2dnUU7-RvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<YFZKJ.5302$Rza5.348@fx47.iad>
<S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <S6mdnUDanaiu9mH8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 249
Message-ID: <Lx0LJ.8455$V7da.5903@fx13.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: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 21:52:25 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 13300
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 02:52 UTC

On 2/3/22 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 20:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 9:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-01 19:37, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/1/2022 8:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is completely meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure and so is the "I am going to go to the" part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I am going to go to the store to buy some ice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cream."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you don't cut off what I said in the middle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sentence then it makes much more sense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulated by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly transition to ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's just as meaningless. You can simulate Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ or you can provide ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to a simulator. You cannot simulate ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ anymore than you can apply ⟨Ĥ⟩ to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are simply being nit picky about my use of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I insist on terminology being used correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And any place where you attempt to publish your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> results will be equally, if not more, nit picky.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is fine and good that you help correct my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is not fine and good is for you to reject the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essence of the gist of what I am saying entirely on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis that I did not say it exactly according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventions. The is what Ben always did. He never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paid any attention to the actual substance of what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was saying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the input to simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider embedded_H and embedded_H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines that its simulated input cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach any final state then embedded_H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily correct to transition to Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicating that its simulated input never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But now you've just hidden your meaningless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminological abuse. "Its simulated input" is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningful when it is construed as meaning the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the computation REPRESENTED by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, i.e. the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. A simulator simulates a finite string and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of this simulated finite string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the ultimate basis of whether or not it specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator simulates a Turing Machine applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an input. It takes as its input a finite string which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents that Turing Machine/Input pair. It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely meaningless to talk about simulating a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is possible for Turing machines to have blank tapes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The salient aspect for the Halting problem is whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not the finite string machine description specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite or infinite sequence of configurations. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimate basis for determining this is the actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the simulated finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this equally applies to machines having inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and machines not having inputs the distinction relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to inputs is moot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct for embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing else in the universe can possibly refute this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, you're falling back on your belief that ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ is both meaningful (it isn't) and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow distinct from H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of the simulated input when embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is the ultimate measure of the halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just proves you are not working on the Halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Problem,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it only proves that you and André don't understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a halt decider computes the mapping from the inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an accept or reject state (here is the part that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two don't understand):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED by what a the machine the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents would do,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These words prove themselves true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H is the ultimate measure of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, which shows you do not actually know the meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the words.
>>>>>>>>>>> When you disagree that the correct simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>>>> description of a machine is the ultimate measure of the
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior specified by this machine description it is just
>>>>>>>>>>> like saying that a black cat is not a cat.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that 'Correct Simulation of a machine
>>>>>>>>>> description' has an actual meaning, in that the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> must match the actual behavior of the machine whose
>>>>>>>>>> description it is simulating, RIGHT?
>>>>>>>>> It must only do exactly what it actually does, if this does not
>>>>>>>>> meet expectations then expectations must be incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence
>>>>>>> this conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any
>>>>>>> UTM).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown
>>>>> above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>> recognized)
>>>
>>> Then embedded_H has conclusively proved that its simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> cannot possibly ever reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn even in an infinite number of
>>> simulated steps thus meeting the Linz definition of a sequence of
>>> configurations that never halt.
>>>
>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt whenever it
>>> enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
>>>
>>
>> No, it hasn't, because I just showed you that if H -> H.Qn then the
>> computation H^ <H^> Halts.
>>
>
> As long as the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never reaches ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
> then embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ^ 2 ]

<sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26299&group=comp.theory#26299

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
^ 2 ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 21:10:38 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <st7a2e$oo$1@dont-email.me>
<ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 03:10:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6a7ab4d366aa6cc3e38b4adec7035d73";
logging-data="7077"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/c0mRqtww+wVVQTg/HEKlq"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2L7Woyp0O4eonpxuQbB49VmIlkg=
In-Reply-To: <AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 03:10 UTC

On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>
>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>>>
>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number of
>> steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above are
>> plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>
>
> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
> recognized)

We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where it has
just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while it was doing
its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

At this point right here embedded_H has complete proof that the correct
simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn.

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ^ 2 ]

<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26300&group=comp.theory#26300

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
^ 2 ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <ibHJJ.56320$u41.55552@fx41.iad>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.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: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:40:24 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 4896
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 03:40 UTC

On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never aborts.
>>>>
>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown above
>>> are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>
>>
>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>> recognized)
>
> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where it has
> just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while it was doing
> its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>

No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that determination.

The issues that the a simulation of the first N steps of <H^> <H^> does
not prove the non-halting nature of that machine.

Halting is only actually determined by looking at the ACTUAL MACHINE
processing the input, or by a REAL UTM (not an H that just plays one on
TV) which by definition will never aborts its simulation. For these it
is proven that if H -> H.Qn then H^ -> H^.Qn and Halts.

> At this point right here embedded_H has complete proof that the correct
> simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn.
>

How. I showed how that this pattern exists in the HALTING H^ applied to
<H^> computation.

H seeing a pattern that exists in a Halting Computation can NOT be
'proof' that the pattern in non-halting.

You keep on missing that H^ has a copy of whatever H you end up deciding
to use, which jst because it will always run longer than H simulates for
does not make it non-halting, except for the case when H never stops
simulation, in which case it fails for not answering.

Your arguement is based on the incorrect assumption that H can act like
a UTM but still abort its simulation, which is not possible.

FAIL.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ^ 2 ]

<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26301&group=comp.theory#26301

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 21:56:31 -0600
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 21:56:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
^ 2 ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<hK-dnaKCNvKd2Wr8nZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 58
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-72Lv6mCBaRLxBOXvfu59+RBO/C0BlAd94cib5xlzLkPty9rXl3JsrU8ZeRk9wyOpjOZjhzPMLQpsxqI!t2u+vqF1LncvVWs3PyEPED308djiSa8/C/goc9rz5JN2PXfSvf8u2PEzYK+xgLpKVmqqJzlpt0qD
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: 4494
 by: olcott - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 03:56 UTC

On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence this
>>>>>> conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any UTM).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>
>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown
>>>> above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>> recognized)
>>
>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where it
>> has just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while it was
>> doing its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>
>
> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that determination.

THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized in a
finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for embedded_H to
transition to Ĥ.qn.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ^ 2 ]

<8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26302&group=comp.theory#26302

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx19.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
^ 2 ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <stckvf$lim$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.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: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:20:19 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5170
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 04:20 UTC

On 2/3/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence
>>>>>>> this conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any
>>>>>>> UTM).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite number
>>>>> of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations shown
>>>>> above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>> recognized)
>>>
>>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where it
>>> has just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while it was
>>> doing its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>
>>
>> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that determination.
>
> THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
> As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized in a
> finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for embedded_H to
> transition to Ĥ.qn.
>
>

Except that such a pattern in H^ is a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn,
because of the 'pathological self-reference', any pattern that H might
think in non-halting becomes Halting if H uses it, so such a pattern can
not exist.

So yes, **IF** H detects a **CORRECT** non-hatling pattern, it would be
correct to abort and go to H.Qn, but there does not exist any such
pattern in H^, as if H <H^> <H^> -> H.Qn on detecting any candidate
pattern, then we KNOW that H^ <H^> will also go to H^.Qn and Halt.

Since H^ <H^> is by definition the computation described by <H^> <H^>,
this means any pattern that H might act on becomes non-halting, as it is
the thing that H must be answering about.

You keep on trying to get around that fact, but that just proves you
aren't working on the halting problem.

I have asked you to provide a pattern that H could use, but when you
tried, I showed that if H actually did use that pattern, that the H^
built from it will halt, so that pattern was not correct.

FAIL.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ^ 2 ]

<qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26303&group=comp.theory#26303

 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: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 22:45:35 -0600
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 22:45:35 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
^ 2 ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<DdOdnT-oZYDyQmT8nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 69
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JnxqWBbVistvq8E85EI6QxIxCVXEABqFmOjh60bqqSERAxCfZZzgtMk5lndSoNFsuRWgs/e70ylaxOa!2+jhbYAOXR2qxApCCq1coySE9vJ+vr6Vravxv+li89wKId9NpmmZrDKxLyycn2AQYPwnWYYnzGQB
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: 4996
 by: olcott - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 04:45 UTC

On 2/3/2022 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/3/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence
>>>>>>>> this conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention any
>>>>>>>> UTM).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite
>>>>>> number of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations
>>>>>> shown above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>>> recognized)
>>>>
>>>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where it
>>>> has just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while it was
>>>> doing its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that determination.
>>
>> THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
>> As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized in a
>> finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for embedded_H to
>> transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>
>>
>
> Except that such a pattern in H^ is a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn,
So in other words the concept of logical necessity is so far over your
head that you cannot begin to fathom it.

When we know that we have a black cat then we know that we have a cat
and you dishonestly disagree.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire ^ 2 ]

<Dr2LJ.10368$%uX7.995@fx38.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26304&group=comp.theory#26304

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!news.neodome.net!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx38.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ pants on fire
^ 2 ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <stcp3j$aba$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>
<qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <Dr2LJ.10368$%uX7.995@fx38.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: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 00:02:26 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5961
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 05:02 UTC

On 2/3/22 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/3/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is what it actually does:
>>>>>>>>>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if that is what it actually does, then H NEVER aborts its
>>>>>>>>>> simulation and thus never give an answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When embedded_H correctly matches the above infinite sequence
>>>>>>>>> this conclusively proves that its correct simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn. (We don't even need to mention
>>>>>>>>> any UTM).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excepts as previously said, that pattern only exists if H never
>>>>>>>> aborts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite
>>>>>>> number of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations
>>>>>>> shown above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>>>> recognized)
>>>>>
>>>>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where it
>>>>> has just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while it
>>>>> was doing its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that determination.
>>>
>>> THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
>>> As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized in a
>>> finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for embedded_H
>>> to transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Except that such a pattern in H^ is a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn,
> So in other words the concept of logical necessity is so far over your
> head that you cannot begin to fathom it.

WHY is it logicallyt necessary that the pattern you have presupposed to
exist to actually exist?

As I agreed, **IF** H could find such a pattern, it would be correct to
abort and go to H.Qn, but it is a logical necessity that ANY case were
we have H^ using H, if H -> H.Qn, then H^ also goes to H^.Qn, and Halts.

Since H <H^> <H^> IS a case that is used by H^ <H^> and the latter is
also the computation that the first one is a description of, if H in
this case goes to H.Qn, then we have that the computation that its input
is a description of BY NECESSITY Halts, so H is incorrect to go to H.Qn.

The problem is you have fallen into the fallicy of assumed existance.
Yes, if there was a correct pattern, then H could use it to get the
right answer, but the mere existance of such a pattern creates a
contradition, so the pattern just can not exist.

Yes, there are some patterns that H can use for other computations, and
an H could be created that answers any problem correctly. There just
isn't an answer that H can give for this particular one, because the
machine it is trying to decide on was based on it and designed to be
contradictory.

FAIL.

>
> When we know that we have a black cat then we know that we have a cat
> and you dishonestly disagree.
>

Except that you do NOT have a black cat, so are mistaken to claim you
have one.

You seem to like your Herring Red.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or deception? ]

<2Iqdnb2lBP1XKGH8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26305&group=comp.theory#26305

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 23:12:41 -0600
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:12:41 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or
deception? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<s7ydnRoFS9rDc2T8nZ2dnUU7-R3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>
<qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
<Dr2LJ.10368$%uX7.995@fx38.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <Dr2LJ.10368$%uX7.995@fx38.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <2Iqdnb2lBP1XKGH8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 69
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Q8yNiGHIgE+OUrIyi3/Hci3shZqmfGOJG7XlJUBS72uFTiB9a4QmCPddbohdl+TJPlFKOALC5fHh1iH!sNV0PXhPTvxJNW86pM4eM7B8IxchZWbMny0lXFj9MejBWOFj8YeMuHNeUfkgTWMP7NFy3GYyqEMd
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: 4939
 by: olcott - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 05:12 UTC

On 2/3/2022 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/3/22 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2022 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/3/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite
>>>>>>>> number of steps where it can be recognized. The three iterations
>>>>>>>> shown above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>>>>> recognized)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where
>>>>>> it has just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while
>>>>>> it was doing its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that
>>>>> determination.
>>>>
>>>> THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
>>>> As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized in a
>>>> finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for embedded_H
>>>> to transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except that such a pattern in H^ is a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn,
>> So in other words the concept of logical necessity is so far over your
>> head that you cannot begin to fathom it.
>
> WHY is it logicallyt necessary that the pattern you have presupposed to
> exist to actually exist?
>
> As I agreed, **IF** H could find such a pattern, it would be correct to
> abort and go to H.Qn,

Great, yet it took far too long to get agreement on a statement that is
true by logical necessity.

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

You already agreed that these steps would repeat if there was a UTM at
Ĥ.qx instead of embedded_H:

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

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or deception? ]

<F_2LJ.12405$z688.10325@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26306&group=comp.theory#26306

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or
deception? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <stcre2$o38$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>
<qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
<Dr2LJ.10368$%uX7.995@fx38.iad>
<2Iqdnb2lBP1XKGH8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <2Iqdnb2lBP1XKGH8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <F_2LJ.12405$z688.10325@fx35.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 00:39:47 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5610
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 05:39 UTC

On 2/4/22 12:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/3/22 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2022 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite
>>>>>>>>> number of steps where it can be recognized. The three
>>>>>>>>> iterations shown above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>>>>>> recognized)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where
>>>>>>> it has just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while
>>>>>>> it was doing its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that
>>>>>> determination.
>>>>>
>>>>> THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
>>>>> As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized in
>>>>> a finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for
>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that such a pattern in H^ is a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn,
>>> So in other words the concept of logical necessity is so far over
>>> your head that you cannot begin to fathom it.
>>
>> WHY is it logicallyt necessary that the pattern you have presupposed
>> to exist to actually exist?
>>
>> As I agreed, **IF** H could find such a pattern, it would be correct
>> to abort and go to H.Qn,
>
> Great, yet it took far too long to get agreement on a statement that is
> true by logical necessity.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> You already agreed that these steps would repeat if there was a UTM at
> Ĥ.qx instead of embedded_H:
>
> These steps would keep repeating:
> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
> Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>

Right, and if there WAS a UTM at H^.Qx then H is 'just' a UTM, and could
never abort its simulation (as if it did, it wouldn't be a UTM) and thus
H never answers, and FAILS.

I have always agreed that H^ could be non-halting in the case that H
never aborts and thus doesn't answer. But such an H is still wrong,
because it doesn't answer.

Your problem is that an H that is both a UTM and aborts its simulation
to answer to H.Qn is definitionally impossible, one of your Fairy Dust
Powered Unicorns.

Remember, at H^.Qx is an exact copy of the machine H, so H.Qx behaves
identical to H, so if the machine at H^.Qx doesn't abort, neither can H.

If you disagress with that, please provide the Fairy Dust Powered
Unicorn of a Turing Machine that has two identical copies given the
exact same inputs but gives different results in the two cases.

If you can actually do that, you would be famous, as that would surpass
the Russel Paradox of the Set of all Sets that Don't Contain themselves.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or deception? ]

<Nt2dnbMoaZX9z2D8nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26312&group=comp.theory#26312

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 10:20:48 -0600
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:20:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or
deception? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me>
<rtKdnX6XWc-RbmT8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>
<qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
<Dr2LJ.10368$%uX7.995@fx38.iad>
<2Iqdnb2lBP1XKGH8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<F_2LJ.12405$z688.10325@fx35.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <F_2LJ.12405$z688.10325@fx35.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Nt2dnbMoaZX9z2D8nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-glqzQyot0mpKaKoSEvOHmgb/+4jTeifDBzZQLXnf9+yQWWpxRWFDh8klnpvEF3ocDPmEL0k9ZvhCeCR!Jhjs6OkEVwhQ2668kC7DOyXuctfk4YS/FNkcYHc0Nb/7nQAGbImrWfyLVDymVevdp60Z+um92ZSD
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: 5615
 by: olcott - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 16:20 UTC

On 2/3/2022 11:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/4/22 12:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/3/2022 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/3/22 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/3/2022 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite
>>>>>>>>>> number of steps where it can be recognized. The three
>>>>>>>>>> iterations shown above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>>>>>>> recognized)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H where
>>>>>>>> it has just correctly matched an infinite behavior pattern while
>>>>>>>> it was doing its correct simulation of the first N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that
>>>>>>> determination.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
>>>>>> As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized in
>>>>>> a finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for
>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that such a pattern in H^ is a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn,
>>>> So in other words the concept of logical necessity is so far over
>>>> your head that you cannot begin to fathom it.
>>>
>>> WHY is it logicallyt necessary that the pattern you have presupposed
>>> to exist to actually exist?
>>>
>>> As I agreed, **IF** H could find such a pattern, it would be correct
>>> to abort and go to H.Qn,
>>
>> Great, yet it took far too long to get agreement on a statement that
>> is true by logical necessity.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> You already agreed that these steps would repeat if there was a UTM at
>> Ĥ.qx instead of embedded_H:
>>
>> These steps would keep repeating:
>> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>> Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>> Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>
>
> Right, and if there WAS a UTM at H^.Qx then H is 'just' a UTM, and could
> never abort its simulation (as if it did, it wouldn't be a UTM) and thus
> H never answers, and FAILS.

Since you just now agreed that the above is an infinitely repeating
pattern if Ĥ.qx was a UTM, (and you only saw three repetitions) then
embedded_H could simulate the exact same three repetitions of nested
simulations and see the same pattern that you saw.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or deception? ]

<bIcLJ.10499$Rza5.6545@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26313&group=comp.theory#26313

 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!peer01.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/91.5.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V52 [ ignorance or
deception? ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <ssh8vu$4c0$1@dont-email.me> <stcthg$3cm$1@dont-email.me>
<stcumo$8vh$1@dont-email.me> <stcvh0$cch$1@dont-email.me>
<mv2dnSHfMdupPGf8nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfFKJ.10388$z688.3987@fx35.iad>
<qvydnZqq57VNr2b8nZ2dnUU7-QHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hOGKJ.1176$GjY3.517@fx01.iad>
<VcWdnVSMPp4Bo2b8nZ2dnUU7-X_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <VwHKJ.6$kuda.4@fx12.iad>
<stfh6q$n4h$1@dont-email.me> <E%HKJ.2115$R1C9.241@fx22.iad>
<XfqdnbvOjdlgzWb8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<M2JKJ.4101$Lbb6.3058@fx45.iad> <stfmu1$gmj$1@dont-email.me>
<asJKJ.1617$GjY3.627@fx01.iad>
<rcGdnYyzKLOE-mb8nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AkPKJ.16272$Y1A7.3766@fx43.iad> <sti5fg$6t5$1@dont-email.me>
<Ke1LJ.2478$jxu4.116@fx02.iad>
<a42dndwyC7tyPmH8nZ2dnUU7-YXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8Q1LJ.6242$4vG9.2731@fx19.iad>
<qvmdnRv_YsPyMmH8nZ2dnUU7-XednZ2d@giganews.com>
<Dr2LJ.10368$%uX7.995@fx38.iad>
<2Iqdnb2lBP1XKGH8nZ2dnUU7-ffNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<F_2LJ.12405$z688.10325@fx35.iad>
<Nt2dnbMoaZX9z2D8nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Nt2dnbMoaZX9z2D8nZ2dnUU7-I_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <bIcLJ.10499$Rza5.6545@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: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:42:45 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5773
X-Original-Bytes: 5640
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 4 Feb 2022 16:42 UTC

On 2/4/22 11:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 11:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/4/22 12:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/3/2022 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/3/22 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/3/2022 10:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/22 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 9:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/22 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/2022 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/3/22 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2022 10:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/22 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is not true. The pattern exists for at least any finite
>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps where it can be recognized. The three
>>>>>>>>>>> iterations shown above are plenty enough for it to be recogized.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But if it only exists for a finite number of steps (till it is
>>>>>>>>>> recognized)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are discussing the point in the execution of embedded_H
>>>>>>>>> where it has just correctly matched an infinite behavior
>>>>>>>>> pattern while it was doing its correct simulation of the first
>>>>>>>>> N steps of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you are CLAIMING (incorrectly) that it has made that
>>>>>>>> determination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DISAGREEING WITH:
>>>>>>> As soon as an infinite behavior pattern is correctly recognized
>>>>>>> in a finite number of steps then it is definitely correct for
>>>>>>> embedded_H to transition to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that such a pattern in H^ is a Fairy Dust Powered Unicorn,
>>>>> So in other words the concept of logical necessity is so far over
>>>>> your head that you cannot begin to fathom it.
>>>>
>>>> WHY is it logicallyt necessary that the pattern you have presupposed
>>>> to exist to actually exist?
>>>>
>>>> As I agreed, **IF** H could find such a pattern, it would be correct
>>>> to abort and go to H.Qn,
>>>
>>> Great, yet it took far too long to get agreement on a statement that
>>> is true by logical necessity.
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> You already agreed that these steps would repeat if there was a UTM
>>> at Ĥ.qx instead of embedded_H:
>>>
>>> These steps would keep repeating:
>>> Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>> Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>>> Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>>>
>>
>> Right, and if there WAS a UTM at H^.Qx then H is 'just' a UTM, and
>> could never abort its simulation (as if it did, it wouldn't be a UTM)
>> and thus H never answers, and FAILS.
>
> Since you just now agreed that the above is an infinitely repeating
> pattern if Ĥ.qx was a UTM, (and you only saw three repetitions) then
> embedded_H could simulate the exact same three repetitions of nested
> simulations and see the same pattern that you saw.
>
>

Except that if embedded_H aborts its simulation it is not a UTM, so the
proof doesn't hold.

That is poster child of unsound logic.

Remember the exacting definition of a UTM, if H/embedded_H doesn't meet
ALL of them, it isn't one, and you can't use a proof that assumed it was
one any more.

An embedded_H that is both a UTM and aborts its simulation is IMPOSSIBLE.

That is why one of your 'famous phrases' of it being 'impossibly
correct' is so appropriate, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be correct, as it
is only correct if the impossible happens.

FAIL.

Pages:123456789101112
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor