On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of
>>>>>>>>> the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the basis
>>>>>>>>> of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state is
>>>>>>> a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>
>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.
>>
>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of halting.
>
> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified as
> completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>
>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is
>>> aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of its
>>> input and transitions to qn.
>>
>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that allow
>> us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>
>

Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.

in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state

in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^

A partial simulation is not the TM itself.

Thus your arguement is

X => Y
Z

therefore Y

Which is NOT sound logic.

The simulation is KNOWN to be partial, because we have defined that H
will abort its simulation to give an answer. The 'H' that doesn't abort
its simulation is a different Hn that creates a different Hn^. Assuming
that this H^ is the same machine as that other Hn^ is an error.

A simulation that aborts is by definition a partial simulation

A UTM by definition NEVER abort the simulation of a non-halting computation.

Thus you whole thesis is based on incorrect logic.

By the plain meaning of the words, it is self-evident that you are
making a mistake.

On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of
>>>>>>>>>> the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>> basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>> is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.
>>>
>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of
>>> halting.
>>
>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified
>> as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>
>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is
>>>> aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of
>>>> its input and transitions to qn.
>>>
>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that
>>> allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>
>>
>
> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>
> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>
> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>
> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>

The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an actual
infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be correctly
determined to be an infinite loop.

As soon as the halt decider correctly determines that a pure simulation
of either an infinite loop or H(P,P) or Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never end then
it necessarily correctly stops this simulation and reports not halting
in both cases.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/22/2021 4:55 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Crossposts removed. ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
>> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.
>
> That is not the case. If the said statement, purely hypothetically, is
> incoherent gibberish, it is impossible to prove it false. That doesn't
> make it true.
>

Statements only include philosophical truth bearers thus expressions of
language that cannot be resolved to exactly one of true or false are not
statements.

> There are many other reasons why "impossible to prove false" doesn't
> necessarily imply truth.
>

I pointed out your error, please try again.

>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
>
>> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
>> minds." Einstein
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/2021 4:55 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Crossposts removed. ]

>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> [ .... ]

>>> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
>>> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.

>> That is not the case. If the said statement, purely hypothetically, is
>> incoherent gibberish, it is impossible to prove it false. That doesn't
>> make it true.

> Statements only include philosophical truth bearers thus expressions of
> language that cannot be resolved to exactly one of true or false are not
> statements.

Ah, so you're _defining_ your use of "statement" to mean something
different from what everybody else means by it.

>> There are many other reasons why "impossible to prove false" doesn't
>> necessarily imply truth.

> I pointed out your error, please try again.

I made no error. You were just making a perverse redefinition.

> --
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered
> violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On 10/22/2021 12:06 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2021 4:55 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Crossposts removed. ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>>>> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
>>>> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.
>
>>> That is not the case. If the said statement, purely hypothetically, is
>>> incoherent gibberish, it is impossible to prove it false. That doesn't
>>> make it true.
>
>
>> Statements only include philosophical truth bearers thus expressions of
>> language that cannot be resolved to exactly one of true or false are not
>> statements.
>
> Ah, so you're _defining_ your use of "statement" to mean something
> different from what everybody else means by it.
>

I qualified my use of the term.

Whenever an expression such as a declarative sentence or a logic
sentence is a truth bearer such that it can possibly be resolved to
exactly one of true or false** cannot possibly be proved false then this
expression of language is necessarily true.

** excludes undecidable propositions.

>>> There are many other reasons why "impossible to prove false" doesn't
>>> necessarily imply truth.
>
>> I pointed out your error, please try again.
>
> I made no error. You were just making a perverse redefinition.
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered
>> violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty of
>>>>>>>>>>> the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>> is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.
>>>>
>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of
>>>> halting.
>>>
>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified
>>> as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>
>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is
>>>>> aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of
>>>>> its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that
>>>> allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>
>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>
>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>
>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>
>
> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an actual
> infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be correctly
> determined to be an infinite loop.

No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER proof
that the loop actual is infinite.

The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state is NOT
proof that the same machine simulated by a non-aborting simulation won't
reach that halting state.

Your 'proof' that you use is unsound because it presumes that the copy
of H that it is simulating will NEVER abort its simulation, when we know
that in fact it will, since it is an identical copy of the computation
making the decision, so if the H giving the answer stops and says
non-halting, so must that copy of it in the machine being simulated.

>
> As soon as the halt decider correctly determines that a pure simulation
> of either an infinite loop or H(P,P) or Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would never end then
> it necessarily correctly stops this simulation and reports not halting
> in both cases.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>

And a machine that 'acts like a pure simulator until ... ' is actually
NOT a pure simulator. Since a UTM BY DEFINITION will NEVER abort a
non-halting simulation, your decider is NOT a UTM, or what you seem to
try to be implying by the comment of being a 'pure simulator'.

It might accurately simulate the machine for the period of time it
simulates it, but it does NOT have the property that its (partial)
simulation is an accurate recreation of the (full) behavior of the
machine it is simulating.

Your logic FAILS to actually PROVE your conclusion.

The converse of your conclusion is actually PROVEN by your running of
the compuatation, so the only thing that a claim that your proof is
actually good does is PROVE that the logic system you have created with
your added 'assumptions' in inconsistant and thus WORTHLESS.

On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2021 4:55 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Crossposts removed. ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove that
>>> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.
>>
>> That is not the case.  If the said statement, purely hypothetically, is
>> incoherent gibberish, it is impossible to prove it false.  That doesn't
>> make it true.
>>
>
> Statements only include philosophical truth bearers thus expressions of
> language that cannot be resolved to exactly one of true or false are not
> statements.

And since the 'rule' that you have to be able to prove a statement for
it to be true can't actually be proven (it just needs to be taken as one
of your system definitional assumptions) it isn't actually a statement
by its own definition.

Try to prove me wrong.

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>> exit.
>>>
>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>
>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.

You are being childish again. It's not a good look. You should try
engaging with the point I made.

You've blown the excuse that you only care about this one case, because
you are referring to Linz's Ĥ. That is an empty class of TMs because of
how it is specified. If you want to cling to the "only this one case"
argument you must stop talking about Linz's nonexistent TMs and define
your own. Unless you admit you are not talking about Linz's Ĥ I will
keep pointing out why you are wrong about it.

--
Ben.

On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the truth of some expressions of language entirely on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set of
>>>>>>>>>>> sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>>> is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of
>>>>> halting.
>>>>
>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is verified
>>>> as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>
>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is
>>>>>> aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of
>>>>>> its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that
>>>>> allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>
>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>>
>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>
>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>
>>
>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an
>> actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be
>> correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>
>
> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER proof
> that the loop actual is infinite.
>

// This is complete proof.
HERE: goto HERE;

> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state is NOT

This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not meant to
be an insult. It is something that you should really look into.

We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the same
sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite loop would
never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.

When I was maintaining the credit card dispute management system I had
to very carefully study the VISA change documents about 15 times before
I could be reasonably sure that I had accounted for all the places that
this system could be effected.

> proof that the same machine simulated by a non-aborting simulation won't
> reach that halting state.
>
> Your 'proof' that you use is unsound because it presumes that the copy
> of H that it is simulating will NEVER abort its simulation, when we know
> that in fact it will, since it is an identical copy of the computation
> making the decision, so if the H giving the answer stops and says
> non-halting, so must that copy of it in the machine being simulated.
>
>>
>> As soon as the halt decider correctly determines that a pure
>> simulation of either an infinite loop or H(P,P) or Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would
>> never end then it necessarily correctly stops this simulation and
>> reports not halting in both cases.
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>
>>
>
> And a machine that 'acts like a pure simulator until ... ' is actually
> NOT a pure simulator. Since a UTM BY DEFINITION will NEVER abort a
> non-halting simulation, your decider is NOT a UTM, or what you seem to
> try to be implying by the comment of being a 'pure simulator'.
>
> It might accurately simulate the machine for the period of time it
> simulates it, but it does NOT have the property that its (partial)
> simulation is an accurate recreation of the (full) behavior of the
> machine it is simulating.
>
> Your logic FAILS to actually PROVE your conclusion.
>
> The converse of your conclusion is actually PROVEN by your running of
> the compuatation, so the only thing that a claim that your proof is
> actually good does is PROVE that the logic system you have created with
> your added 'assumptions' in inconsistant and thus WORTHLESS.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/22/2021 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/22/2021 4:55 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Crossposts removed. ]
>>>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove
>>>> that
>>>> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.
>>>
>>> That is not the case.  If the said statement, purely hypothetically, is
>>> incoherent gibberish, it is impossible to prove it false.  That doesn't
>>> make it true.
>>>
>>
>> Statements only include philosophical truth bearers thus expressions
>> of language that cannot be resolved to exactly one of true or false
>> are not statements.
>
> And since the 'rule' that you have to be able to prove a statement for
> it to be true can't actually be proven (it just needs to be taken as one
> of your system definitional assumptions) it isn't actually a statement
> by its own definition.
>
> Try to prove me wrong.

When a halt decider correctly decides that its input never halts then it
is utterly impossible to show that it is wrong.

When we know that we have a black cat then we know that we have a cat.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/22/2021 6:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>>> exit.
>>>>
>>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>>
>>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>>
>>
>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>
>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>
>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>
>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>
>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>
> You are being childish again. It's not a good look. You should try
> engaging with the point I made.
>

The words above are like say that when we know that we have a black cat
then we know that we have a cat, and yet you still disagree.

You can some how show that a black cat is not a cat?

> You've blown the excuse that you only care about this one case, because
> you are referring to Linz's Ĥ. That is an empty class of TMs because of
> how it is specified. If you want to cling to the "only this one case"
> argument you must stop talking about Linz's nonexistent TMs and define
> your own. Unless you admit you are not talking about Linz's Ĥ I will
> keep pointing out why you are wrong about it.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/23/21 12:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2021 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2021 4:55 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Crossposts removed. ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> Whenever I make any statement and it is totally impossible to prove
>>>>> that
>>>>> this statement is false then that proves that this statement is true.
>>>>
>>>> That is not the case.  If the said statement, purely hypothetically, is
>>>> incoherent gibberish, it is impossible to prove it false.  That doesn't
>>>> make it true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Statements only include philosophical truth bearers thus expressions
>>> of language that cannot be resolved to exactly one of true or false
>>> are not statements.
>>
>> And since the 'rule' that you have to be able to prove a statement for
>> it to be true can't actually be proven (it just needs to be taken as
>> one of your system definitional assumptions) it isn't actually a
>> statement by its own definition.
>>
>> Try to prove me wrong.
>
> When a halt decider correctly decides that its input never halts then it
> is utterly impossible to show that it is wrong.
>
> When we know that we have a black cat then we know that we have a cat.
>

Except that you HAVEN'T shown that the Halt Deceder got the right
answer, so it is like soeone claiming that that there White Poodle is a
Black Cat, and thus that they have a cat.

You seem totally unable to be able to tell what is and is not the truth.
That make you a pathological liar.

For a Halt Decider to be correct, then its answer MUST match what the
Computation it is deciding on actually does.

Since H^(<H^>) reaches its final Halting state of H^qn in finite time,
then the right answer for H(<H^>,<H^>) to give is Halting, i.e. to end
up in H.qy, not H.qn. But, it doesn't, it ends up in H.qn.

You fill the air with all sorts of BS to try to explain away why it is
ok to make that error and why that error is correct, but it is all just
a bunch of lies.

You CLAIM to be working under strict rules of Truth, but you don't seem
to know a thing about what it truth and what is fabrication.

You don't know the meaning of the words, so when you make claims like it
is obvious 'from the meaning of the words' you lie.

You don't seem to know what it means to analytically PROVE something so
you make crude (and incorrect) rhetorical arguments, and then claim you
have made an analytical proof.

Your mind is stuck on an idea, and just can not think. You have rejected
the Truth, and have seemingly condemned yourself to an eternity of bad
logic.

On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the truth of some expressions of language entirely on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set
>>>>>>>>>>>> of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>> state is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never
>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of
>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is
>>>>> verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> never    reaches it final state (whether or not its simulation is
>>>>>>> aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts the simulation of
>>>>>>> its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that
>>>>>> allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> André
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>>
>>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>>>
>>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>>
>>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an
>>> actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be
>>> correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>>
>>
>> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER proof
>> that the loop actual is infinite.
>>
>
> // This is complete proof.
> HERE: goto HERE;
>
>> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state is NOT
>
> This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
> When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not meant to
> be an insult. It is something that you should really look into.

What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe you
should look into actually learning what is the truth.
>
> We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the same
> sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite loop would
> never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.

Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never
aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>) does
abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.

The fact that you don't understand that H has to be just one thing at a
time tells us a lot about your mental capabilities.

>
> When I was maintaining the credit card dispute management system I had
> to very carefully study the VISA change documents about 15 times before
> I could be reasonably sure that I had accounted for all the places that
> this system could be effected.

So why can't you understand something much simpler?

Read Linz, see what he says you HAVE to do te be working under his
conditions.

On 10/23/21 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/22/2021 6:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>>>> exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>>>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>>>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>>>
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
>>> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
>>> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
>>> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
>>> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input
>>> halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>
>> You are being childish again.  It's not a good look.  You should try
>> engaging with the point I made.
>>
>
> The words above are like say that when we know that we have a black cat
> then we know that we have a cat, and yet you still disagree.
>
> You can some how show that a black cat is not a cat?

But it isn't the case you claim.

Your statement is gibberish.

The phrase "whether or not its input halts on its input" is an improper
sentence. Inputs don't halt or not.

The ACTUAL condition the decider is supposed to be using is something like:

"The Computation REPRESENTED by its input" or
"The Machine REPRESENTED by the first part of its input applied to the
rest of its input"

Note the key word added, REPRESENTED. The input is the representation of
H^ and a second copy of that.

THus both of these phrases refer to the actual operation of H^ applied
to a representation of H^, which you have previously admitted is Halting.

You repeatedly MISINTERPRET these conditions to be the (partial)
simulation by H of te input, which is incorrect.

That is why you keep on trying to enter your Dog in the Cat show,
because you think it is close enough.

On 10/23/2021 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical certainty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the truth of some expressions of language entirely on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of the semantic meaning of these expressions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>> state is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never
>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of
>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is
>>>>>> verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its
>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts
>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that
>>>>>>> allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status
>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>>>
>>>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>>>>
>>>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>>>
>>>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an
>>>> actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be
>>>> correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER proof
>>> that the loop actual is infinite.
>>>
>>
>> // This is complete proof.
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>
>>> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state is NOT
>>
>> This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
>> When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not meant
>> to be an insult. It is something that you should really look into.
>
> What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe you
> should look into actually learning what is the truth.
>>
>> We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the same
>> sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite loop would
>> never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.
>
> Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never
> aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>) does
> abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.
>

Likewise with the infinite loop.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/23/21 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2021 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty of the truth of some expressions of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the semantic meaning of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to
>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never
>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition of
>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is
>>>>>>> verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its
>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts
>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does that
>>>>>>>> allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status
>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words."?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an
>>>>> actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be
>>>>> correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER proof
>>>> that the loop actual is infinite.
>>>>
>>>
>>> // This is complete proof.
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>
>>>> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state is
>>>> NOT
>>>
>>> This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
>>> When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not meant
>>> to be an insult. It is something that you should really look into.
>>
>> What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe you
>> should look into actually learning what is the truth.
>>>
>>> We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the
>>> same sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite loop
>>> would never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.
>>
>> Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never
>> aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>)
>> does abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.
>>
>
> Likewise with the infinite loop.
>

Right, you don't get to 'prove' that you are right by looking at bad
version of your design and say that they don't work.

If H answers H(<H^>,<H^>) as non-halting then H^(<H^>) is halting. PROVEN.

The fact that you argue that for Hbad, which fails to work, that
Hbad^(<Hbad^>) is non-halting doesn't actually prove anything, as H has
been given H^ not Hbad^. Mixing them up just shows you are either an
idiot or a liar.

The fact that there is a decider that fails worse than H doesn't mean
that H is right, it is still wrong.

It seems that what you ar trying to argue is that the Simulating Halting
Deciders, because they have a built in disability, need to be given
'special' compensation and allowed to use a different test that the
'normal' deciders.

They don't. If Simulating Halting Deciders just have inherent
limitations, that just shows that they don't meet the requirements and
fail the enterance requirements to be a real decider. There are no
'alternate' requirements that they get to use because the real
requirements are just too hard.

Is your problem that YOU were given too many 'alternate' requirements
because you couldn't handle the real thing and you now think that is how
the world works?

On 10/23/2021 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 10/23/21 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2021 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty of the truth of some expressions of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the semantic meaning of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to
>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state never
>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition
>>>>>>>>> of halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is
>>>>>>>> verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its
>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts
>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does
>>>>>>>>> that allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt
>>>>>>>>> status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>> words."?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an
>>>>>> actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be
>>>>>> correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER
>>>>> proof that the loop actual is infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> // This is complete proof.
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>
>>>>> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state
>>>>> is NOT
>>>>
>>>> This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
>>>> When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not
>>>> meant to be an insult. It is something that you should really look
>>>> into.
>>>
>>> What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe you
>>> should look into actually learning what is the truth.
>>>>
>>>> We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the
>>>> same sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite
>>>> loop would never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.
>>>
>>> Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never
>>> aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>)
>>> does abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.
>>>
>>
>> Likewise with the infinite loop.
>>
>
> Right, you don't get to 'prove' that you are right by looking at bad
> version of your design and say that they don't work.
>
So in other words you are confirming that you believe that it is
impossible for a simulating halt decider to correctly determine that an
infinite loop never halts?

void Infinite_Loop()
{ HERE: goto HERE;
}

_Infinite_Loop()
[00000ab0](01) 55 push ebp
[00000ab1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000ab3](02) ebfe jmp 00000ab3
[00000ab5](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000ab6](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [00000ab6]

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/23/21 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2021 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 10/23/21 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2021 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty of the truth of some expressions of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the semantic meaning of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring to
>>>>>>>>>>>> here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition
>>>>>>>>>> of halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is
>>>>>>>>> verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to
>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly aborts
>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does
>>>>>>>>>> that allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt
>>>>>>>>>> status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>> words."?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that an
>>>>>>> actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot be
>>>>>>> correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER
>>>>>> proof that the loop actual is infinite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> // This is complete proof.
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state
>>>>>> is NOT
>>>>>
>>>>> This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
>>>>> When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not
>>>>> meant to be an insult. It is something that you should really look
>>>>> into.
>>>>
>>>> What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe
>>>> you should look into actually learning what is the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the
>>>>> same sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite
>>>>> loop would never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.
>>>>
>>>> Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never
>>>> aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>> does abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Likewise with the infinite loop.
>>>
>>
>> Right, you don't get to 'prove' that you are right by looking at bad
>> version of your design and say that they don't work.
>>
> So in other words you are confirming that you believe that it is
> impossible for a simulating halt decider to correctly determine that an
> infinite loop never halts?
>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>   HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00000ab0](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000ab1](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000ab3](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000ab3
> [00000ab5](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000ab6](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [00000ab6]
>
>

On 10/23/2021 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/23/21 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2021 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/23/21 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2021 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty of the truth of some expressions of language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the semantic meaning of these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't concerned with the evaluation of linguistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the definition
>>>>>>>>>>> of halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is
>>>>>>>>>> verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does
>>>>>>>>>>> that allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt
>>>>>>>>>>> status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>> words."?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that
>>>>>>>> an actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot
>>>>>>>> be correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER
>>>>>>> proof that the loop actual is infinite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // This is complete proof.
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting state
>>>>>>> is NOT
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
>>>>>> When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not
>>>>>> meant to be an insult. It is something that you should really look
>>>>>> into.
>>>>>
>>>>> What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe
>>>>> you should look into actually learning what is the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the
>>>>>> same sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite
>>>>>> loop would never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never
>>>>> aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>> does abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Likewise with the infinite loop.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, you don't get to 'prove' that you are right by looking at bad
>>> version of your design and say that they don't work.
>>>
>> So in other words you are confirming that you believe that it is
>> impossible for a simulating halt decider to correctly determine that
>> an infinite loop never halts?
>>
>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [00000ab0](01)  55              push ebp
>> [00000ab1](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>> [00000ab3](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000ab3
>> [00000ab5](01)  5d              pop ebp
>> [00000ab6](01)  c3              ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00000ab6]
>>
>>
>
> You like that strawman. I guess it makes some sense as we aproach
> Halloween.
>
> You seem to be under the totally mistaken impression that just because
> something works for one case, it means that it works for all cases.

On 10/23/21 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2021 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/23/21 12:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2021 10:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/23/21 9:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2021 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/22/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/22/2021 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/22/21 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/22/2021 7:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/21 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 7:48 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 17:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 16:23, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:12 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:59, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-10-21 15:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So then you are aware that we can attain logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainty of the truth of some expressions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language entirely on the basis of the semantic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of these expressions of language?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, for a relatively small and largely uninteresting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of sentences. But that isn't part of epistemology,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't concerned with the evaluation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linguistic expressions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that a TM that never reaches its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state is a TM that never halts?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, which has nothing to do with anything I posted above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How bout them Mets?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "We" certainly cannot. Which words are you even referring
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to here?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Self-evident truths:  (a & b)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) We know that a TM that never reaches its final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's not a 'self-evident truth'. That's just the
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An expression of language is self-evidently true when it is
>>>>>>>>>>> verified as completely rue entirely on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) When it is verified that the simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ⟨Ĥ⟩ never    reaches it final state (whether or not its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted) then we know that Ĥq0 correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the simulation of its input and transitions to qn.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Assuming for sake of argument that (b) is correct, how does
>>>>>>>>>>>> that allow us to tell that "Ĥq0 correctly determines the
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ entirely on the basis of the meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words."?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If X necessitates Y and X then Y.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except you have two DIFFERENT things you are calling X.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in (a) it is that a TM (itself) that never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in (b) it is that a (partial) simulation of H^
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation is not the TM itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The huge flaw in your reasoning is that it would conclude that
>>>>>>>>> an actual infinite loop that is not infinitely simulated cannot
>>>>>>>>> be correctly determined to be an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that is NOT what I am saying, but you need to use a PROPER
>>>>>>>> proof that the loop actual is infinite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // This is complete proof.
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that an aborted simulation doesn't reach a halting
>>>>>>>> state is NOT
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is where you are always much much dumber than a box of rocks.
>>>>>>> When I say that you have attention deficit disorder this is not
>>>>>>> meant to be an insult. It is something that you should really
>>>>>>> look into.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What, the fact that I actually KNOW something bothers your. Maybe
>>>>>> you should look into actually learning what is the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can know that an infinite simulation would never end using the
>>>>>>> same sort of a process that we use to determine that an infinite
>>>>>>> loop would never end. I have explained this many dozens of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that we know that IF H actually did what you said and never
>>>>>> aborted, then H(<H^>,<H^>) would never answer, and if H(<H^>,<H^>)
>>>>>> does abort top answer that H^(<H^>) does halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise with the infinite loop.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, you don't get to 'prove' that you are right by looking at bad
>>>> version of your design and say that they don't work.
>>>>
>>> So in other words you are confirming that you believe that it is
>>> impossible for a simulating halt decider to correctly determine that
>>> an infinite loop never halts?
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [00000ab0](01)  55              push ebp
>>> [00000ab1](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000ab3](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000ab3
>>> [00000ab5](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>> [00000ab6](01)  c3              ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00000ab6]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You like that strawman. I guess it makes some sense as we aproach
>> Halloween.
>>
>> You seem to be under the totally mistaken impression that just because
>> something works for one case, it means that it works for all cases.
>
> You rejected that H(P,P) can be decided by a simulating halt decider on
> the basis that if the simulation never halts then the simulating halt
> decider never returns its halts status and if the simulating halt
> decider does return its halt status then the input halts.
>
> A simulating halt decider correctly decides that H(P,P) never halts on
> the same kind of axiomatic basis that it decides that an infinite loop
> never halts. Because of this it decides both cases correctly.
>

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 10/22/2021 6:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>>>> exit.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>>>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>>>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>>>
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>
>> You are being childish again. It's not a good look. You should try
>> engaging with the point I made.
>
> The words above are like say that when we know that we have a black
> cat then we know that we have a cat, and yet you still disagree.

We know there are black cats. We know they are all cats. We know there
are no halt deciders using a few trivial steps that you pretend to not
(or perhaps really don't) understand.

It's rather obvious that can't fault the logic in the proof, because you
don't even try. At the key step you simply remove the condition that
applies and you replace it with your own words. That's not how
mathematics works!

If you write the line

q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn

and you follow that with any condition other than "if Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
not halt" then you are not talking about Linz's Ĥ. You can't specify
what it /is/ you are talking about (14 years trying attest to that) but
it's not Linz's Ĥ with any other condition than the one he writes.

> You can some how show that a black cat is not a cat?

A simulating halt decider is a member of the class of halt deciders.
That's an empty class.

>> You've blown the excuse that you only care about this one case, because
>> you are referring to Linz's Ĥ. That is an empty class of TMs because of
>> how it is specified. If you want to cling to the "only this one case"
>> argument you must stop talking about Linz's nonexistent TMs and define
>> your own. Unless you admit you are not talking about Linz's Ĥ I will
>> keep pointing out why you are wrong about it.

--
Ben.

On 10/24/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/22/2021 6:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>>>>> exit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>>>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>>>>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>>>>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>
>>> You are being childish again. It's not a good look. You should try
>>> engaging with the point I made.
>>
>> The words above are like say that when we know that we have a black
>> cat then we know that we have a cat, and yet you still disagree.
>
> We know there are black cats. We know they are all cats. We know there
> are no halt deciders using a few trivial steps that you pretend to not
> (or perhaps really don't) understand.
>

Of course when you say there are no halt decider you do not mean that
they are no halt deciders you mean that there are no universal halt
deciders. It would be better if you say exactly what you mean and mean
exactly what you say.

void Infinite_Loop()
{ HERE: goto HERE;
}

_Infinite_Loop()
[00000ab0](01) 55 push ebp
[00000ab1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000ab3](02) ebfe jmp 00000ab3
[00000ab5](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000ab6](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [00000ab6]

Surely you would agree that the above infinite loop can be correctly
decided as not halting.

> It's rather obvious that can't fault the logic in the proof, because you
> don't even try.

As long as I can show how the impossible input is correctly decided as
not halting I have totally refuted the proof. No more details than this
are required.

If someone claims X cannot possibly be done and I show X being done,
then I have totally proved them wrong. That you disagree with this is
either ridiculous or dishonest.

> At the key step you simply remove the condition that
> applies and you replace it with your own words. That's not how
> mathematics works!

> If you write the line
>
> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>
> and you follow that with any condition other than "if Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
> not halt" then you are not talking about Linz's Ĥ.

If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input
never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
possibly contradict this.

YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.

If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input
never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
possibly contradict this.

YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.

If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input
never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
possibly contradict this.

YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 10/24/21 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2021 6:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>>>>>> exit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>>>>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>>>>>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>>>>>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its
>>>>> input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then
>>>>> it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its
>>>>> input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then
>>>>> it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its
>>>>> input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then
>>>>> it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its
>>>>> input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then
>>>>> it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its
>>>>> input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then
>>>>> it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> You are being childish again.  It's not a good look.  You should try
>>>> engaging with the point I made.
>>>
>>> The words above are like say that when we know that we have a black
>>> cat then we know that we have a cat, and yet you still disagree.
>>
>> We know there are black cats.  We know they are all cats.  We know there
>> are no halt deciders using a few trivial steps that you pretend to not
>> (or perhaps really don't) understand.
>>
>
> Of course when you say there are no halt decider you do not mean that
> they are no halt deciders you mean that there are no universal halt
> deciders. It would be better if you say exactly what you mean and mean
> exactly what you say.

He means there are no even partial halt deciders that get the H^
computation correctly.

Yours doesn't (it says non-halting when the actual computation is
Halting), so you still haven't shown a member of that even partial set.

>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>   HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [00000ab0](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000ab1](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000ab3](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000ab3
> [00000ab5](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000ab6](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [00000ab6]
>
> Surely you would agree that the above infinite loop can be correctly
> decided as not halting.

But that isn't the computation that you claim to be able to disprove
Linz with.

>
>> It's rather obvious that can't fault the logic in the proof, because you
>> don't even try.
>
> As long as I can show how the impossible input is correctly decided as
> not halting I have totally refuted the proof. No more details than this
> are required.

Except that you haven't proved that the computation is non-halting, in
fact you have public agreed that it is halting.

You only make the absurd claim that a wrong answer is somehow because H
hasn't gone far enough to prove it Halting.

>
> If someone claims X cannot possibly be done and I show X being done,
> then I have totally proved them wrong. That you disagree with this is
> either ridiculous or dishonest.
>

Except that you HAVEN'T proved that X can be done.

You have provided a Halt Decider that says that a computaton that
actually halts in short order is non-halting.

All you have proved is that you H can't actually prove that this
computation is Halting, so it erroneously calls it non-halting.

>> At the key step you simply remove the condition that
>> applies and you replace it with your own words.  That's not how
>> mathematics works!
>
>> If you write the line
>>
>>    q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>
>> and you follow that with any condition other than "if Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>> not halt" then you are not talking about Linz's Ĥ.
>
> If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input
> never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
> possibly contradict this.

Except that H^(<H^>) does halt Your line shows it getting to H^qn which
is a halting state, so it IS Halting.

>
> YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
> If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.

Except that X IS incorrect and you haven't actually proved that it was
correct.

You refuse to answer to comments pointing out the flaws in your
reasoning, so your proof is still discredited.

>
>
>
> If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input
> never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
> possibly contradict this.

?? Facts can't argue with claims?

Isn't that the whole basis of your arguement? You are trying to provide
a Halt decider that actually gets the right answer to disprove the prove
that it is impossible, since you can't find the actual error in the proof.

>
> YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
> If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.
>
>

But it isn't.

>
> If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input
> never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
> possibly contradict this.
>

But the Computation that the input is a representation of DOES Halt, and
that is what the question is about.

You still don't understand that NO input halts or doesn't halt, only
machines. Data doesn't have a 'Halting Property', only machines applied
to data. You use the wrong machine applied to the data.

> YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
> If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.
>

No, it isn't. Maybe you have shown that X is correcct about Z, but it
isn;t correct about Y.

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 10/24/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 10/22/2021 6:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>>>>>> exit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>>>>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>>>>>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>>>>>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> You are being childish again. It's not a good look. You should try
>>>> engaging with the point I made.
>>>
>>> The words above are like say that when we know that we have a black
>>> cat then we know that we have a cat, and yet you still disagree.
>> We know there are black cats. We know they are all cats. We know there
>> are no halt deciders using a few trivial steps that you pretend to not
>> (or perhaps really don't) understand.
>
> Of course when you say there are no halt decider you do not mean that
> they are no halt deciders you mean that there are no universal halt
> deciders. It would be better if you say exactly what you mean and mean
> exactly what you say.

There is no need for the qualification. A halt decider is well know
term. What's more, /you/ are talking about halt deciders (what you now
want to call "universal" halt deciders) because you are using Linz's Ĥ
to refer to the same class of TM that Linz does. Or was that a lie?

You can't keep equivocating. If you write Ĥ to mean what Linz means,
then the H from which it is derived is a (universal) halt decider.

But if you want to talk about TMs that only get only some (special) case
right, then you need to define the expected behaviour and, unless you
want to spread more confusion, use a different letter. I am certain you
won't do this. You will keep dishonestly referring to Ĥ.

> As long as I can show how the impossible input is correctly decided as
> not halting I have totally refuted the proof. No more details than
> this are required.

I am only correcting the dishonest discussion of Linz's Ĥ. Linz's Ĥ is
defined from an H that gets all cases right.

> If someone claims X cannot possibly be done and I show X being done,
> then I have totally proved them wrong. That you disagree with this is
> either ridiculous or dishonest.

You are talking about Linz's H/Ĥ pair and deceptively removing key
conditions. That does not show that what you claim can be done. You
have not even stated what your TM J should do.

If you want to go back to the claim from Dec 2018 that turned out to be
"poetic licence" then, if you won't publish the TM, you need at least to
specify it. You can't "borrow" Linz's specification without having to
accept the consequences of it.

>> At the key step you simply remove the condition that
>> applies and you replace it with your own words. That's not how
>> mathematics works!
>
>> If you write the line
>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>> and you follow that with any condition other than "if Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩ does
>> not halt" then you are not talking about Linz's Ĥ.
>
> If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input
> never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
> possibly contradict this.

Asserting what is "correct" does not make it so.

For Linz's Ĥ, Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts (in state Ĥqn) if (and only if) Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.

> YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
> If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.

No. I disagree that your words reflect how Linz's Ĥ is specified. Your
assertions of what is a correct determination is just so much hot air.

When you write:

q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn

always add "if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". Any
waffle you care to add on top of that is up to you, but deleting the key
phrase is lying.

> If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
> possibly contradict this.
>
> YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
> If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.
>
> If the halt decider at Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly determines that its input never halts then even the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts cannot
> possibly contradict this.
>
> YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS:
> If X is correct about Y then X is not incorrect about Y.

How very childish.

--
Ben.

On 10/25/2021 7:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/24/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 10/22/2021 6:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 9:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2021 5:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥq0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥqn
>>>>>>>>>> We can tell that Ĥq0 correctly determines the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>>> We can tell, based entirely on how Ĥ is defined, that no such Ĥ can
>>>>>>>>> exit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can only "tell" this by making sure to dismiss what I say
>>>>>>>> out-of-hand without carefully evaluating it point-by-point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone (except you) can tell it by reading the proof given in Linz.
>>>>>>> Everything Linz says applies to what you consider your very special
>>>>>>> "simulating halt deciders".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halt decider must only correctly decide whether or not its input halts on its input. As long as this decision is correct then it is
>>>>>> impossible for anything else to show that the halt decider is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are being childish again. It's not a good look. You should try
>>>>> engaging with the point I made.
>>>>
>>>> The words above are like say that when we know that we have a black
>>>> cat then we know that we have a cat, and yet you still disagree.
>>> We know there are black cats. We know they are all cats. We know there
>>> are no halt deciders using a few trivial steps that you pretend to not
>>> (or perhaps really don't) understand.
>>
>> Of course when you say there are no halt decider you do not mean that
>> they are no halt deciders you mean that there are no universal halt
>> deciders. It would be better if you say exactly what you mean and mean
>> exactly what you say.
>
> There is no need for the qualification. A halt decider is well know
> term. What's more, /you/ are talking about halt deciders (what you now
> want to call "universal" halt deciders) because you are using Linz's Ĥ
> to refer to the same class of TM that Linz does. Or was that a lie?
>
> You can't keep equivocating. If you write Ĥ to mean what Linz means,
> then the H from which it is derived is a (universal) halt decider.
>
> But if you want to talk about TMs that only get only some (special) case
> right, then you need to define the expected behaviour and, unless you
> want to spread more confusion, use a different letter. I am certain you
> won't do this. You will keep dishonestly referring to Ĥ.
>
>> As long as I can show how the impossible input is correctly decided as
>> not halting I have totally refuted the proof. No more details than
>> this are required.
>
> I am only correcting the dishonest discussion of Linz's Ĥ. Linz's Ĥ is
> defined from an H that gets all cases right.
>
Within the specific context of the details of the proof ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is
defined as an input that H gets wrong thus when I show that H decides
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly Linz has been refuted.

Are you willing to admit that if it is shown that H correctly decides
the halt status of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that Linz has been refuted or are you going
to dishonestly dodge this key point?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein