Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

SubjectAuthor
* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
+- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]dklei...@gmail.com
|+- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
| `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|             +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|             |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|             | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|             |  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|             |   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|             |    +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Python
|             |    |+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|             |    ||`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|             |    |`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]B.H.
|             |    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|             |     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|             |      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|             |       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]olcott
|             |        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]Richard Damon
|             |         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |          +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsPython
|             |          |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |          | `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                 `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsolcott
|             |                              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ misconceptionsRichard Damon
|             |                               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|             |                                `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]Richard Damon
|             |                                 `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|             |                                  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]Richard Damon
|             |                                   `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
|             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ]( application to olcott
|              `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ Linz Proof ](Richard Damon
`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
 +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]Richard Damon
 |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]olcott
 | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |           `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |            `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |             `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |              `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |               `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |                `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |                 `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |                  `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |                   `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |                    `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |                     `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |                      `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |                       `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |                        `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 |                         `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentRichard Damon
 |                          +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentMr Flibble
 |                          |+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentPython
 |                          ||`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentMr Flibble
 |                          || `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)wij
 |                          |`* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
 |                          | +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]Mr Flibble
 |                          | |+* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]olcott
 |                          | ||`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]Richard Damon
 |                          | |`- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]Richard Damon
 |                          | +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]Mr Flibble
 |                          | +* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]Python
 |                          | `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]Richard Damon
 |                          `* Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evidentolcott
 `- Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ]Richard Damon

Pages:1234567
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<Au2dnTgth-hdLJP_nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26651&group=comp.theory#26651

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:36:16 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:36:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220217195015.00003c53@reddwarf.jmc>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220217195015.00003c53@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <Au2dnTgth-hdLJP_nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 176
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-vqOZZzTFuAQPSDUR6jG4E8cF7uAJot9og5z9AXsPytnt2Zk/SqbEeMV08FneaLtylpI4S5lbYJmTf96!L8jEl8EvH6BJXloCN7tscAxY3wkScOnfX1JiWdYZ40kS15ZFdoWyxn80V/6SWj+45fHYibc1Zw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9046
 by: olcott - Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:36 UTC

On 2/17/2022 1:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>> windows of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
>>>>>>> why you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
>>>>>>> peer review to make statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>> its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>> never halt. That is accepted.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>
>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes
>>>> to H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>
>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>
>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>> applied to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>> BECAUSE H <H"> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>> is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>
>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>> means your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>
>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>
>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>
>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>
>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>> goal is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>> which isn't even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
>>>> that is the field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
>>>> a background to handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>
>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>
> I am really sorry to hear that. :( I hope you live as long as possible
> without pain.
>
> /Flibble

The only issue now is my seemingly probable greatly shortened life span.
There is no pain, discomfort or signs of illness besides my huge lymph
nodes. The one under my right arm pit is about the size of a tennis
ball: two inches in diameter.

https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi
My FLIPI index score of 3 gave me a 35% 10 year survival rate and a 53%
5 year survival rate from date of diagnosis two years ago last December.

0.35 * 10 = 3.50
0.53 * 5 = 2.65
(3.5 + 2.65) / 2 = 3.075 years from December 19, 2019
(about 11 more months left from now)

Any help with my proof would be greatly appreciated.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26663&group=comp.theory#26663

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:35:59 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="54720"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Content-Language: en-GB
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:35 UTC

olcott wrote:
> [...]
> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.

I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
on this prediction.

....
> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.

> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
> boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed to
> its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with mine
> until after I fully formed my own view.
>
> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
a lot of blunders about Set Theory.

Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
in acting like a crank.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26664&group=comp.theory#26664

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:58:11 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 19:58:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wkcS0+qvy33fKr0bC/IBPRka2/z7p3BZPjDAncP2IgF8TasNTVPckk0PeqPwVM7EeIVWeBgGmbGsh1c!NUc5tf6RkD6adSldKrqAilQ7qudad1hPO+E92nVttT/EiUhNERmHbKWuUVm+8Cbfyv859eHeeA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4769
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:58 UTC

On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> [...]
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>
> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
> on this prediction.
>
> ...
>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
>> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>
>
>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
>> boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed
>> to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with
>> mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>
>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>
> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
> in acting like a crank.
>

If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski Undefinability
Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's Halting problem
proof are all correct then truth itself is fundamentally broken.

Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
notion of truth that is actually broken.

Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction) the
only way that one can know that any expression of language is true is by
its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a category error
and Gödel must be wrong.

This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of these
details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through from
scratch. Elon Musk calls this: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26665&group=comp.theory#26665

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:13:30 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="11140"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Content-Language: fr
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:13 UTC

olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>
>> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
>> on this prediction.
>>
>> ...
>>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
>>> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>>
>>
>>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
>>> boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed
>>> to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with
>>> mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>>
>>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>>
>> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>>
>> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
>> in acting like a crank.
>>
>
> If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski Undefinability
> Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's Halting problem
> proof are all correct then truth itself is fundamentally broken.
>
> Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
> fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
> notion of truth that is actually broken.
>
> Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
> truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction) the
> only way that one can know that any expression of language is true is by
> its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a category error
> and Gödel must be wrong.
>
> This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of these
> details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through from
> scratch. Elon Musk calls this: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a
delusional crank.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<0dudnR5nhbFomZL_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26666&group=comp.theory#26666

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:31:17 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:31:15 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <0dudnR5nhbFomZL_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 93
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RnsZuO+r1rxnPH5WFfCBh7KwVivwPG41JAdxgpGAKcuWjokW00gw75teSOTTnGMvfjSUdoNCPvEYTc2!+3hkV+AsZOXnb1DWpUaokbEr6XDzSmx4nTmgUKdKKvT7vSF1GJCUcgK/AGng6F5rt7GkGJ6RHQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6125
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:31 UTC

On 2/17/2022 8:13 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>
>>> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
>>> on this prediction.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
>>>> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>>>
>>>
>>>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein
>>>> actually boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and
>>>> then pointed to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view
>>>> agreed with mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>>>
>>>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
>>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
>>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
>>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>>>
>>> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
>>> in acting like a crank.
>>>
>>
>> If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski
>> Undefinability Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's
>> Halting problem proof are all correct then truth itself is
>> fundamentally broken.
>>
>> Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
>> fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
>> notion of truth that is actually broken.
>>
>> Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
>> truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction) the
>> only way that one can know that any expression of language is true is
>> by its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a category
>> error and Gödel must be wrong.
>>
>> This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of
>> these details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through
>> from scratch. Elon Musk calls this:
>> https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
> you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a
> delusional crank.

Wittgenstein perfectly agrees and he was one of the leaders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

When we boil things down to their barest essence as Turing Award (1999)
winner Fred Brooks suggests in his "No Silver Bullet—Essence and
Accident in Software Engineering" we find Wittgenstein's view of 1931
Gödel Incompleteness is exactly correct rather than a simplistic
misunderstanding.

The reason why I know this view is correct is the I discovered every
single detail of Wittgenstein's view before I ever heard of Wittgenstein.

For the entire body of analytic knowledge that includes all of math and
logic no expression of language can be known to be true unless and until
it is proven to be true. This makes 1931 Gödel Incompleteness incorrect
before it even gets started.

I dare you to find a single error of substance anywhere in my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<P9GdnVcQde1YlpL_nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26669&group=comp.theory#26669

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:00:21 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:00:18 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ic%OJ.35722$41E7.34839@fx37.iad>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <P9GdnVcQde1YlpL_nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 92
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RK4laZx+v5KW4othdVO+2NhvPxP1BG8Gafk7Af62jSdMzMHKBRA8AqEj2I8Ylp0V0xGJzAU/WS6+iUf!lAC8UygdSsl3XSp22RUHjSwJQQql9CjP27RVstvjWJcbtNkkfXvX1nd63tD25ba7UIAnN6q9cw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5396
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:00 UTC

On 2/17/2022 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>>> its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows of
>>>>> an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the words.
>>>>
>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>
>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something, but
>>>> if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you have a
>>>> VERY long wait.
>>>>
>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>> review to make statements.
>>>
>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>> its reject state.
>>>
>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>
>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>
>> Example:
>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on its
>> own without being aborted.
>>
>
> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>
> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
> halt. That is accepted.
>
> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we have
> the following trace:
>
> We start at H".Q0 <H">
> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H">

As I have told you at least a hundred times this is not what it is
doing. it is always <H"> <H"> you freaking nitwit.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26670&group=comp.theory#26670

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx45.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:02:27 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 9779
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:02 UTC

On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>
>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> Example:
>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>
>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>
>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>
>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>> have the following trace:
>>>
>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>
>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>
>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>
>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>
>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>
>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>
>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>
>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>
>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>
>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>
>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>
> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea why
> you would be reversing course now.

Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate. WHAT rule of
Formal Logic does the proof violate. WHAT FALSE premise was it based on.

If you can't name a SPECIFIC error, you haven't show it to be illegitimate.

THe fact that the proof shows something you don't want to accept doesn't
mean anything.

Like all the rest of your comments below, you don't actually point out a
specifie error, but just make a rhetorical arguement that it must be
incorrect.

The problem is that these are FORMAL logic fields, and rhetorical
arguments are NOT valid in that domain.

FAIL.

>
> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>
> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
> boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed to
> its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with mine
> until after I fully formed my own view.
>
> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> The key benefit of my research is the it eliminates the limit to
> computability and anchors Davidson's "truth conditional semantics" in a
> formalized notion of truth. Analytical truth (of the analytic versus
> synthetic distinction) is merely a set of mutually interlocking semantic
> tautologies.
>
> Some expressions of language are defined to be true (basic facts) such
> as "cats are animals" and other expressions of language can be deduced
> from these {basic facts}.
>
> This sums up my view HP proof rebuttal quite concisely:
> [Halt status criteria that correctly handles pathological
> self-reference] (posted in  this group).
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<r1EPJ.67515$Lbb6.33872@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26672&group=comp.theory#26672

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx45.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220217194845.000037aa@reddwarf.jmc>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220217194845.000037aa@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <r1EPJ.67515$Lbb6.33872@fx45.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:04:57 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 8594
X-Original-Bytes: 8461
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:04 UTC

On 2/17/22 2:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>> windows of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
>>>>>>> why you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
>>>>>>> peer review to make statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>> its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>> never halt. That is accepted.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>
>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes
>>>> to H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>
>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>
>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>> applied to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>> BECAUSE H <H"> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>> is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>
>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>> means your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>
>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>
>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>
>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>
>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>> goal is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>> which isn't even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
>>>> that is the field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
>>>> a background to handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>
>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>
>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>> why you would be reversing course now.
>
> I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your
> argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
> cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
> for the proofs.
>
> /Flibble
>

If you want to claim a categorical error, you need to actually point it
out. What claim assigns something to a category of thing that it is not.

PO's 'proof' can be classified as a categorical error, as his 'H'
doesn't actually meet the definition of a TUring Machine or a
Computation. The problem is that H doesn't have a single finite fixed
algorithm, but hsi proof actually conflates two different Hs under the
same name.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<sun2ec$16at$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26673&group=comp.theory#26673

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:06:01 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sun2ec$16at$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<0dudnR5nhbFomZL_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="39261"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0
Content-Language: fr
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:06 UTC

olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 8:13 PM, Python wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>
>>>> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
>>>> on this prediction.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox.
>>>>> See also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein
>>>>> actually boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and
>>>>> then pointed to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view
>>>>> agreed with mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
>>>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
>>>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
>>>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
>>>> in acting like a crank.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski
>>> Undefinability Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's
>>> Halting problem proof are all correct then truth itself is
>>> fundamentally broken.
>>>
>>> Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
>>> fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
>>> notion of truth that is actually broken.
>>>
>>> Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
>>> truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction)
>>> the only way that one can know that any expression of language is
>>> true is by its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a
>>> category error and Gödel must be wrong.
>>>
>>> This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of
>>> these details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through
>>> from scratch. Elon Musk calls this:
>>> https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>>
>> If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
>> you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a
>> delusional crank.
>
> Wittgenstein perfectly agrees and he was one of the leaders
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
>
> When we boil things down to their barest essence as Turing Award (1999)
> winner Fred Brooks suggests in his "No Silver Bullet—Essence and
> Accident in Software Engineering" we find Wittgenstein's view of 1931
> Gödel Incompleteness is exactly correct rather than a simplistic
> misunderstanding.
>
> The reason why I know this view is correct is the I discovered every
> single detail of Wittgenstein's view before I ever heard of Wittgenstein.

This is quite weak a reason.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26674&group=comp.theory#26674

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:08:25 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:08:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 169
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-79d1d/pC0xB0JQefSvXzDDU5hFvpQ+twuU+QUngN8LFhE2jOlub1trl/NxlyAlLsoGEI1SyHUXMB5w7!6+eMjg090yqREio4HWQZAL6g/u+fA61iInKL1UvzSg2wiBN/zFlcKelJ/L8Z67mSZ1qHWLBt9A==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8956
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:08 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>
>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>
>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>
>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>
>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>
>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>
>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>
>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>
>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>
>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>
>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>
>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>
>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>
>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>
>>>> FAIL.
>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>
>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>> why you would be reversing course now.
>
> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.

Here is Flibble's reply:

On 2/17/2022 1:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>> why you would be reversing course now.
>
> I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your
> argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
> cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
> for the proofs.
>
> /Flibble
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<i5EPJ.32128$r6p7.5340@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26675&group=comp.theory#26675

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20220217194845.000037aa@reddwarf.jmc>
<zPudneGKipT3M5P_nZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zPudneGKipT3M5P_nZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 217
Message-ID: <i5EPJ.32128$r6p7.5340@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:09:03 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 10837
X-Original-Bytes: 10703
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:09 UTC

On 2/17/22 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 1:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>> windows of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>>> of the words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
>>>>>>>> why you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
>>>>>>>> peer review to make statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>>> its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>>> never halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>
>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes
>>>>> to H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>> applied to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>>> BECAUSE H <H"> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to
>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and thus H has violated its requirements, and thus
>>>>> is not correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>
>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>>> means your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>>> goal is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>> which isn't even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if
>>>>> that is the field you are used to talking in, you just don't have
>>>>> a background to handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>
>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>> I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your
>> argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
>> cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
>> for the proofs.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> Do you have any suggestions of a way that I can proceed such that this
> category error can be clearly seen by others?
>
> The closest thing that I have found that might accomplish this is
> something along the lines of a much simpler analogy that
> Daryl McCullough came up with 6/25/04 on the sci.logic USENET group.
>
> I recently contacted him through Facebook and he is the original author
> of: "Jack's question" It took me many years to track down the original
> author of this original post. For many years I called it Bill's question
> and may have attributed the authorship to someone else.
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/4kIXI1kxmsI/m/hRroMoQZx2IJ
>
> You ask someone (we'll call him "Jack") to give a truthful
> yes/no answer to the following question:
>
> Will Jack's answer to this question be no?
>
> Jack can't possibly give a correct yes/no answer to the question.
>
> Daryl applied his analogy to Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem and
> Turing's Halting problem proof.
>
>
>
>
> By slightly adapting the halt status criterion measure a halt decider
> may be defined that correctly determines the halt status of the
> conventional halting problem proof counter-examples.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26676&group=comp.theory#26676

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:12:18 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="44688"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: fr
 by: Python - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:12 UTC

olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>
>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>
>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>
>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>
>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>
> Here is Flibble's reply:

Flibble is a well known crank and troll.

You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
from other cranks.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<JdEPJ.41898$3jp8.14704@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26677&group=comp.theory#26677

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <JdEPJ.41898$3jp8.14704@fx33.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:18:02 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5448
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:18 UTC

On 2/17/22 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>
>> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
>> on this prediction.
>>
>> ...
>>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox. See
>>> also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel Theorem.
>>
>>
>>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein actually
>>> boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and then pointed
>>> to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's view agreed with
>>> mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>>
>>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>>
>> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>>
>> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
>> in acting like a crank.
>>
>
> If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski Undefinability
> Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's Halting problem
> proof are all correct then truth itself is fundamentally broken.

No, YOUR view of truth is fundamentally broken, and thus incorrect.

>
> Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
> fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible human
> notion of truth that is actually broken.

Again, it isn't that Truth is broken, it is that you have the wrong
definition of Truth.

>
> Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
> truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction) the
> only way that one can know that any expression of language is true is by
> its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a category error
> and Gödel must be wrong.

And this shows the difference between Truth and Knowledge.

It turns out that a fundamental property of the Universe is that there
are Unknowable Truths, because man if finite.

Yes, you might want to build your logic on the concept that you can't
TAKE something as being True if you can't prove it, but to insist that
something can't be actually true unless it is provable leads to an
emense implosion of what can be discussed to the level of almost just
being a toy.

Taken to the extreame, this concept means that you can't ask if
something is true or not until you can prove that it is provable one way
or the other, and you can't ask that question until you prove THAT is
provable, and so on. This means you can never ask about something until
you have actually determined if it is true or false.

That you can't understand this just shows YOUR error.

>
> This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of these
> details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through from
> scratch. Elon Musk calls this: https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<sfEPJ.41899$3jp8.13354@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26678&group=comp.theory#26678

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 169
Message-ID: <sfEPJ.41899$3jp8.13354@fx33.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:19:54 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 8743
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:19 UTC

On 2/17/22 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>
>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>
>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>
>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>
>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>
> Here is Flibble's reply:

Which proves what?

>
> On 2/17/2022 1:48 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 12:44:05 -0600
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
> >> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
> >> why you would be reversing course now.
> >
> > I am not reversing course: I still think you are correct however your
> > argument with Richard Damon is going nowhere as he and most others
> > cannot see (or refuse to see) the category error present in the basis
> > for the proofs.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident ](typo)

<4hEPJ.41900$3jp8.6925@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26679&group=comp.theory#26679

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ self-evident
](typo)
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<1fydncXkn7tkcpH_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<rv6PJ.26589$ZmJ7.22312@fx06.iad>
<ZJidnWwBd-E8YJH_nZ2dnUU7-YPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad>
<P9GdnVcQde1YlpL_nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <P9GdnVcQde1YlpL_nZ2dnUU7-Q_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <4hEPJ.41900$3jp8.6925@fx33.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:21:37 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 5214
X-Original-Bytes: 5081
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:21 UTC

On 2/17/22 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 6:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>>>> its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>
>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something, but
>>>>> if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you have a
>>>>> VERY long wait.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>
>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>> its reject state.
>>>>
>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>
>>
>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>
>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>> halt. That is accepted.
>>
>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we have
>> the following trace:
>>
>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H">
>
> As I have told you at least a hundred times this is not what it is
> doing. it is always <H"> <H"> you freaking nitwit.
>
>

If H" or H^ don't end up at Qn when the copy of H inside them goes to
H.Qn then you built them wrong, and are just proved to be a pathelogical
liar.

FAIL.

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26681&group=comp.theory#26681

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:30:56 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:30:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<jcgPJ.42193$Tr18.32470@fx42.iad>
<prqdnaszmuB3D5D_nZ2dnUU7-L3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 167
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RQRgxmst8d7Hhotwjp0S7Zbg6GE6s6kqLSD62xr1CAF/SIZ7V0Y+kXO0NjU2CXDoeOsOfuqOYr/VAbq!0TpfGEtKZK4ecTusQhED2OQ+c0HWA8gXfs7xEToVr4D8W6tGmxonWp+p9iKnU/Km0LYNGmLUcg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 9213
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:30 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" applied
>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which isn't
>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a background to
>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little time
>>>> left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>
>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of the
>>>> halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea
>>>> why you would be reversing course now.
>>>
>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>
>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>
> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>
> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
> from other cranks.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<LdadnV1HQd2XiZL_nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26683&group=comp.theory#26683

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:35:38 -0600
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 21:35:36 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sumt5i$1le0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<s9GdnW-hO6OuYJP_nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sumvbt$as4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<0dudnR5nhbFomZL_nZ2dnUU7-TXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2ec$16at$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <sun2ec$16at$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <LdadnV1HQd2XiZL_nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 109
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ztI8Unmz6DXm77KPha8iAO9oKBAICUiapQqoYWsY6tgk3Ey5BB05fuoWNA1BLVgIJaVtc7/tXNlJY+f!3QbOR5HkLzwhXVgcE3pz+AluBK+62fpuEDMCrHT+0UA7RgFiGw9Wcc+Z5+5VPunx3ZrxallNIQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6731
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:35 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:06 PM, Python wrote:
> olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 8:13 PM, Python wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm really sorry to read this, and hope medical science will be wrong
>>>>> on this prediction.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I have applied analogous reasoning to Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>>>>> theorem, the Tarski Undefinability theorem and the Liar paradox.
>>>>>> See also Wittgenstein's “notorious paragraph” about the Gödel
>>>>>> Theorem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> People wrote off his view as merely simplistic. Wittgenstein
>>>>>> actually boiled Gödel's reasoning down to its barest essence and
>>>>>> then pointed to its error. I was not aware that Wittgenstein's
>>>>>> view agreed with mine until after I fully formed my own view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's sad to see you losing your time on such a hopeless goal... Your
>>>>> rebuttal is wrong, HP proofs still stand, also does Gödel's theorems.
>>>>> Wittgenstein was completely off track on these issues, he wrote also
>>>>> a lot of blunders about Set Theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously, if ever you have little time left, don't trash this time
>>>>> in acting like a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the 1931 Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, the 1936 Tarski
>>>> Undefinability Theorem and what is currently referred to as Turing's
>>>> Halting problem proof are all correct then truth itself is
>>>> fundamentally broken.
>>>>
>>>> Since it is 100% perfectly impossible for truth itself to be
>>>> fundamentally broken then it must be that the woefully fallible
>>>> human notion of truth that is actually broken.
>>>>
>>>> Wittgenstein and I both understand that within the body of analytic
>>>> truth (of the philosophical analytic versus synthetic distinction)
>>>> the only way that one can know that any expression of language is
>>>> true is by its proof that it is true, thus true and unprovable is a
>>>> category error and Gödel must be wrong.
>>>>
>>>> This never occurs to the vast majority of people that learn all of
>>>> these details by rote instead of thinking them all the way through
>>>> from scratch. Elon Musk calls this:
>>>> https://jamesclear.com/first-principles
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you really think that every single one who did study the subject but
>>> you has no clue and only repeat what has been taught, then you are a
>>> delusional crank.
>>
>> Wittgenstein perfectly agrees and he was one of the leaders
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism
>>
>> When we boil things down to their barest essence as Turing Award
>> (1999) winner Fred Brooks suggests in his "No Silver Bullet—Essence
>> and Accident in Software Engineering" we find Wittgenstein's view of
>> 1931 Gödel Incompleteness is exactly correct rather than a simplistic
>> misunderstanding.
>>
>> The reason why I know this view is correct is the I discovered every
>> single detail of Wittgenstein's view before I ever heard of Wittgenstein.
>
> This is quite weak a reason.

Since I independently created all of his reasoning myself, I have
first-hand knowledge of what he meant. I don't have to figure out what
he meant second-hand, because I have first-hand knowledge of what he meant.

I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single
simple sentence.

Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel

Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26685&group=comp.theory#26685

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 199
Message-ID: <MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:55:25 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 10322
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 03:55 UTC

On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>> olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the windows
>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is why
>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will never
>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and goes to
>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example means
>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you goal
>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which
>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have no
>>>>> idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>
>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>
>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>
>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>
>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>> from other cranks.
>>
>
> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single
> simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>
>
> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26686&group=comp.theory#26686

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 22:06:29 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 204
Message-ID: <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<LWgPJ.37299$f2a5.14670@fx48.iad>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:06:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f7efda6bdb3326541375d8192e2161d2";
logging-data="7734"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6iJUTg3J2St1nlxyh5927"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Oj4BCQahHxGSS3gMeK6pbekfhE=
In-Reply-To: <MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:06 UTC

On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>> olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you, you
>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which is
>>>>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input halts on
>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about formal
>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to make
>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which
>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
>>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have
>>>>>> no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>
>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>
>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>
>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>> from other cranks.
>>>
>>
>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a single
>> simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in my paper:
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>
>>
>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>
>
> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.
>
> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only be
> something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that Truth is
> only something that csn be proven.
>
> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>
> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that must
> either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but these
> statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example
> of this is the 3x+1 problem.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]

<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26687&group=comp.theory#26687

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx27.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<27ednbO5s9SmP5D_nZ2dnUU7-LvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 232
Message-ID: <a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 23:21:27 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 11204
X-Original-Bytes: 11070
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 04:21 UTC

On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven something,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with you,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> is why
>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H
>>>>>>>>> <H">
>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, and
>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about
>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and not
>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you are
>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that you
>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, which
>>>>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to show
>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
>>>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have
>>>>>>> no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>
>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>
>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in
>>> my paper:
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>
>>>
>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>
>>
>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.
>>
>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only
>> be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that
>> Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>
>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>
>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but
>> these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An
>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>
> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has
> been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical
> expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value
> of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately
> anchored in axioms.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26691&group=comp.theory#26691

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:55:34 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 08:55:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lXhPJ.79798$t2Bb.20487@fx98.iad>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 241
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WzJlSsg61JvMMGVhNhgkVhFGTqkr+V6GVLnI3RVqB2dLdxxovCTnamVt5oSGnFatfj3M+IJbR+OEUf/!OXMY4NpJdVIV9bCcHDLzmrNF4J7ULdMIFT4N1j+vHnde0ZbrslcD0HxyVQSCuljbKAigMnhfgA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12043
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 14:55 UTC

On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will
>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we
>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H
>>>>>>>>>> <H">
>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt,
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about
>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example
>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that
>>>>>>>>>> you goal
>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the
>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to
>>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the
>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of
>>>>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have
>>>>>>>> no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>
>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in
>>>> my paper:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise.
>>>
>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only
>>> be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that
>>> Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>
>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>
>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but
>>> these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable.
>>> An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>
>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has
>> been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical
>> expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value
>> of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately
>> anchored in axioms.
>>
>
> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26697&group=comp.theory#26697

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx27.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3KidneXhytFmM5D_nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 347
Message-ID: <%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:52:28 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 17128
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:52 UTC

On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H
>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see
>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H"
>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE
>>>>>>>>>>> H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about
>>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter
>>>>>>>>>>> example means
>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words'
>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used
>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only
>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what
>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that
>>>>>>>>>>> you goal
>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to
>>>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't
>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little
>>>>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>> of the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I
>>>>>>>>> have no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in
>>>>> my paper:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
>>>> premise.
>>>>
>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can
>>>> only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>
>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>
>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>>>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground,
>>>> but these statements have not been shown to be provable or
>>>> disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>
>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it
>>> has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction
>>> that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>
>>
>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.
>
> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely on
> the basis of their meaning.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26700&group=comp.theory#26700

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:02:03 -0600
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:02:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<QwiPJ.68137$H_t7.60847@fx40.iad>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 249
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zwWcsmmiUS4K00DhC9inp/qhrWE3BJSqni5J+GVbWc8i6Xu0QvOV5vHUep0qWm2eflHSEuyVRqrKoxn!5kj020XP0EKzJedZsO6kZdHcNjvKovTZmROELOneWGGsMngwSlO+RVo4l2AGvYDXA0+24Ld9Cw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 12505
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:02 UTC

On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H
>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and
>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this
>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf
>>>>>>>>>>>> H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE
>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything about
>>>>>>>>>>>> formal
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words'
>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used
>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that
>>>>>>>>>>>> you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> to show
>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with
>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>>> of the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I
>>>>>>>>>> have no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance
>>>>>> in my paper:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
>>>>> premise.
>>>>>
>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can
>>>>> only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>>>>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground,
>>>>> but these statements have not been shown to be provable or
>>>>> disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>
>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it
>>>> has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
>>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
>>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction
>>>> that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to
>>> assume.
>>
>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely on
>> the basis of their meaning.
>
> WRONG. Formal;
That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26702&group=comp.theory#26702

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx07.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pbGdnXumaLMjIZD_nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 298
Message-ID: <SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:38:12 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 14730
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:38 UTC

On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with
>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference
>>>>>>>>>>> of the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate
>>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea why you would be reversing course now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance
>>>>>>> in my paper:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
>>>>>> premise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can
>>>>>> only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
>>>>>> must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground,
>>>>>> but these statements have not been shown to be provable or
>>>>>> disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it
>>>>> has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
>>>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
>>>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to
>>>> assume.
>>>
>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely
>>> on the basis of their meaning.
>>
>> WRONG. Formal;
> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>
> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat is
> the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ]( the nature of truth )

<suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=26703&group=comp.theory#26703

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V62 [ my legacy ](
the nature of truth )
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:55:38 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 274
Message-ID: <suoj2d$hd6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vc-dndgn0rt7amL8nZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CfjPJ.16883$K0Ga.14998@fx10.iad>
<NZednWhW8to3XpD_nZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<7IjPJ.12295$XFM9.7011@fx18.iad>
<XICdnT_q4aIVV5D_nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<c%jPJ.44955$Wdl5.32288@fx44.iad>
<vLudnchJ3YIDUJD_nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<AykPJ.64853$Lbb6.52236@fx45.iad>
<p_adnQJkRaC7Q5D_nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<lJidnYGTm7RvQ5D_nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tNqPJ.37317$f2a5.24020@fx48.iad> <20220217181611.000022e8@reddwarf.jmc>
<4P-dna-klb3qCpP_nZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6%DPJ.67514$Lbb6.41953@fx45.iad>
<_e6dnXea6eE3kJL_nZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sun2q5$1bkg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<NuednUp91v5tj5L_nZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MMEPJ.35878$41E7.8164@fx37.iad> <sun608$7hm$1@dont-email.me>
<a9FPJ.6571$uW1.1454@fx27.iad>
<sPOdndIGvPL7LpL_nZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<%gPPJ.6578$uW1.3501@fx27.iad>
<Y6mdnbk4af9mX5L_nZ2dnUU7-YnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:55:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f7efda6bdb3326541375d8192e2161d2";
logging-data="17830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5eftpSKTUSwXkdLtoGxOJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.6.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:U+YI058Mz8S8T/6CDm4uXDam6vk=
In-Reply-To: <SXPPJ.26281$OT%7.18686@fx07.iad>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:55 UTC

On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RED HERRING.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You just don't understand the difference betweeen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL logic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your monument to your stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that you understand this deep in your heart,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about our H and the H" built from it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We start at H".Q0 <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at  H" will go to H".Qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H" applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have just shown that you don't understand anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of understandable since you have revealed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you goal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to medical science I have terminal cancer with
>>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my
>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you already agreed that the pathological
>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these
>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be reversing
>>>>>>>>>>>> course now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is Flibble's reply:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for
>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>> from other cranks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
>>>>>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance
>>>>>>>> in my paper:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
>>>>>>> premise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can
>>>>>>> only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove
>>>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements
>>>>>>> that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle
>>>>>>> ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable
>>>>>>> or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every expression of language does not count as true until after it
>>>>>> has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
>>>>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
>>>>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to
>>>>> assume.
>>>>
>>>> Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely
>>>> on the basis of their meaning.
>>>
>>> WRONG. Formal;
>> That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
>>
>> If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat
>> is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
>>
>
> Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already
> defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates the
> rules of Formal Logic.
(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:1234567
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor