Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Science may someday discover what faith has always known.


devel / comp.theory / Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piece in dialogue ]

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piece in dialogue ]

<pKz3K.439248$SeK9.29403@fx97.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29596&group=comp.theory#29596

 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!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx97.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<RNidnVr-m8VuutP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2l9u5$s78$1@dont-email.me>
<cvOdnRh1oMwrsNP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2lbfp$l03$1@dont-email.me>
<ddydnYa4KKXprtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2lchk$69m$1@dont-email.me>
<ceydnd_Rxc-Xp9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <t2le3m$ucg$1@dont-email.me>
<0Y-dnRfPMZwYoNP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2lffh$m4b$1@dont-email.me>
<-Y-dneOIwoko39P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2lgpi$a5h$1@dont-email.me>
<a6idnUCCo_-D1dP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<167d7f14-8a54-4f5b-8932-99236586786fn@googlegroups.com>
<m_-dnS8D686z1NP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<2e2cf0ab-e246-40a9-9d2d-bd9bf5f65d62n@googlegroups.com>
<BPSdnVwEgvGa0tP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b047b854-fa33-4c83-9066-e9c196c6bebbn@googlegroups.com>
<ibidnd7EQLcez9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3d6fb15e-b313-4d09-86ed-595ab8784ce5n@googlegroups.com>
<cZ6dnRLq0c8y_dP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <cZ6dnRLq0c8y_dP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 200
Message-ID: <pKz3K.439248$SeK9.29403@fx97.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 07:16:37 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10377
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:16 UTC

On 4/6/22 11:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 10:27 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:55:06 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2022 9:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:40:15 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:26 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:15:18 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:12 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-06 19:47, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-06 19:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:17 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-04-06 19:10, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:50 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, now that we've got that out of the way, here's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question for you: If you want your evenness decider to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether seven is even, which string would you pass to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it? [yes, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this is trivially obvious, just humour me]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 111[]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm assuming that you're using [] to indicate a blank.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably your E would *reject* this string since seven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an odd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number rather than an even one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But notice that in the above case your Turing Machine is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite string "111␣" based on the fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *integer* seven,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is neither an input nor a finite string, is not even.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So your decider is mapping from a finite string (its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input) to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reject/accept based on something which is a "non-input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string" (to use an expression you've often used).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems totally incoherent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The TM maps its input finite string to its reject state
>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> property of this finite string.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But 'evenness' is not a property of strings; it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> property of
>>>>>>>>>>>> numbers, and strings are not numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It can be correctly construed as the property of the string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not by any normal definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A string is an *uninterpreted* sequence of symbols.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your decider bases its decision on a property of the string
>>>>>>>>>>>> (is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> final digit 0?), but that property only corresponds to
>>>>>>>>>>>> evenness by
>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of the encoding you have chosen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A decider which uses a unary representation (which would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> slightly
>>>>>>>>>>>> simpler than your binary one) couldn't just look at a single
>>>>>>>>>>>> digit. Nor
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus not actually simpler.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you actually attempted to write the two versions of E,
>>>>>>>>>> you'd discover
>>>>>>>>>> that you are simply wrong in this assessment. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>> you don't
>>>>>>>>>> realize this is merely a testament to the fact that you really
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> understand how Turing Machines work. At all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> could one that used trinary representation (which would be only
>>>>>>>>>>>> slightly more complex than your binary one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes all three of these valid evenness deciders is
>>>>>>>>>>>> that they
>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the specification of an evenness decider:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> E.q0 S ⊦* E.qy if the *number* represented by the string S
>>>>>>>>>>>> is even
>>>>>>>>>>>> E.q0 S ⊦* E.qn otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the TM maps a finite string to an accept/reject state,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but this
>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping is based on the property of the *number* which that
>>>>>>>>>>>> string
>>>>>>>>>>>> encodes. That number is not an input, but because it can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> encoded
>>>>>>>>>>>> as a string we can still legitimately expect a Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> Machine to
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer questions about that number.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It can be construed as a property of the string.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. It cannot be. Properties of a string would include things
>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>> 'length', 'number of distinct symbols', 'is it a palindrome?',
>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>> Evenness is not one of those properties.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Talking about a finite string as being even or odd is
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless. Only numbers can be even or odd. Yet there is
>>>>>>>>>>>> no problem
>>>>>>>>>>>> in constructing such a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The string has the "even binary integer" property.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. As soon as you start assigning numerical values to a
>>>>>>>>>> string (or even
>>>>>>>>>> to the individual symbols of a string) you are no longer
>>>>>>>>>> treating it
>>>>>>>>>> purely as a string. You are considering the information which
>>>>>>>>>> is encoded
>>>>>>>>>> in that string, which is a separate matter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The all has to do with mathematicaly fomrmalizing semantic
>>>>>>>>> meanings.
>>>>>>>>> Finite strings can have semantic properties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And just like the meaning assigned to the string "111␣" is the
>>>>>>>> number 7, the meaning assigned to the string <H^><H^> is the
>>>>>>>> turing machine H^ applied to <H^>.
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, so you're finally agreeing that the input <H^><H^> represents
>>>>>> H^ applied to <H^>, and that therefore H applied to <H^><H^> is
>>>>>> supposed determine if H^ applied to <H^> halts?
>>>>> It represents a sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> And that sequence of configurations is H^ applied to <H^> as per the
>>>> stipulative definition of a halt decider:
>>> The actual sequence of configurations specified by these three is not
>>> the same thus the behavior can vary.
>>>
>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> You can simply assume that they must be the same, yet when you list them
>>> you can see that they are not the same.
>>
>> By definition the input to H and embedded_H is the representation of Ĥ
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> None-the-less the above three are not the same sequence of steps and
> this directly causes a significant difference in their behavior.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piece in dialogue ]

<HMz3K.439249$SeK9.414160@fx97.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29597&group=comp.theory#29597

 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!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx97.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0c33rk3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9OCdnd0y-MtNatH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81e3mso.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <eI6dnePeWI_8jdD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d822zfj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t7SdnX_CbaqAM9D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2l84o$12q$1@dont-email.me> <RNidnVr-m8VuutP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2l9u5$s78$1@dont-email.me> <cvOdnRh1oMwrsNP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lbfp$l03$1@dont-email.me> <ddydnYa4KKXprtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lchk$69m$1@dont-email.me> <ceydnd_Rxc-Xp9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2le3m$ucg$1@dont-email.me> <0Y-dnRfPMZwYoNP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lffh$m4b$1@dont-email.me> <-Y-dneOIwoko39P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lgpi$a5h$1@dont-email.me> <a6idnUCCo_-D1dP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2li0v$smb$1@dont-email.me> <bcWdnbL5C64E0dP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lj5q$c2n$1@dont-email.me> <4OidnY57QK-czNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <4OidnY57QK-czNP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <HMz3K.439249$SeK9.414160@fx97.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 07:19:04 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2535
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:19 UTC

On 4/6/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2022 9:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-06 20:29, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> A string of binary digits could have the semantic property of "the
>>> current best way to do brain surgery".
>>
>> No, it cannot. A string might encode the English phrase "the current
>> best way to do brain surgery",
>
> You simply fail to grasp semantic properties of strings.
>
>

No, YOU don't seem to really understand what semantics are, and how they
work. You don't seem to understand the concept of context which impacts
semantics.

FAIL.

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

<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29603&group=comp.theory#29603

 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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:35:24 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:35:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 94
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zpUJgBaJmscL2kJBPfacN1p5ZmfX8/W0rGXrxxfNuaiPIG0ZR4V+wUbDa/vFpuVlVs7FiC1OzLyCB1i!YxqEZOKfg6ZoX3bjo3yJChhzGRFNP712XRWI1yXK6xl/zzDKh+PCU6v/Cb9NIMeT3nbQJfCV34f2!1g==
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: 6151
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:35 UTC

On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>
>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>
>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>
>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>> of the input.
>>
>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>
>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>
> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> obviously wrong,

THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.

I will not talk to you about anything besides that.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piece in dialogue ]

<FOidnTieDpjLatP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29604&group=comp.theory#29604

 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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:38:14 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:38:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<874k3761bq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yLWdnZ05dv-m6tH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87k0c33rk3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <9OCdnd0y-MtNatH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81e3mso.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <eI6dnePeWI_8jdD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d822zfj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t7SdnX_CbaqAM9D_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2l84o$12q$1@dont-email.me> <RNidnVr-m8VuutP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2l9u5$s78$1@dont-email.me> <cvOdnRh1oMwrsNP_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lbfp$l03$1@dont-email.me> <ddydnYa4KKXprtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lchk$69m$1@dont-email.me> <ceydnd_Rxc-Xp9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<t2le3m$ucg$1@dont-email.me> <0Y-dnRfPMZwYoNP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2lffh$m4b$1@dont-email.me> <-Y-dneOIwoko39P_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87v8vlcgrs.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87v8vlcgrs.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <FOidnTieDpjLatP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 52
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-u4iWqqpF3ekASjKKOwNelqjkMFJQl6+HAoehl/ND7iMAU3y7RQ9xXOVTaQGgDvgjieHVxzbH/E3kF2C!I/dk+hWhPEO0o6eh+qL2ZFNvRI8XySLptcNt7TAQ2Fth6XeBFTpQHjQap2WpRksKcmFDWbiJM8yn!lQ==
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: 4213
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:38 UTC

On 4/7/2022 5:46 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/6/2022 8:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
>>> What makes all three of these valid evenness deciders is that they
>>> conform to the specification of an evenness decider:
>>> E.q0 S ⊦* E.qy if the *number* represented by the string S is even
>>> E.q0 S ⊦* E.qn otherwise.
>>>
>>> Yes, the TM maps a finite string to an accept/reject state, but this
>>> mapping is based on the property of the *number* which that string
>>> encodes. That number is not an input, but because it can be encoded
>>> as a string we can still legitimately expect a Turing Machine to
>>> answer questions about that number.
>>
>> It can be construed as a property of the string.
>
> I know I said I would leave the side threads alone, but this is too
> interesting a digression.
>
> I added in the example of the TM P because, for the specification to be
> shorter than an essay, it should simply refer to the number a string
> represents. But then you are not contradicting that. Your rather vague
> phrase permits the number a string represents to be "construed as a
> property of the string".
>
> But here's the rub. You can't just say "a property of the string"
> because whether "23 18 9 17 30 22" are next week's lottery numbers "can
> be construed as a property of the string" but it certainly is not a
> /computable property/ of the string. The reason halting is not
> decidable is simply that it is not a computable property of the strings
> we use, where primality is.
>

Sure a computable property of a string is definitely a subset of
properties of strings.

> I say "of the strings that we use" because halting /is/ a decidable
> property of some encodings. If we take our TM and it's input to Delphi,
> we can get a string encoding that starts "1:(0000R(0110R..." for halting
> pairs and "0:(0000R(0110R..." for non-halting ones. The gods are
> helpful like that.
>

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29605&group=comp.theory#29605

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1d05:b0:444:729:8386 with SMTP id e5-20020a0562141d0500b0044407298386mr3767722qvd.77.1649342716256;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:75c6:0:b0:2eb:66cd:4e21 with SMTP id
q189-20020a8175c6000000b002eb66cd4e21mr12089935ywc.148.1649342716047; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 07:45:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:45:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:45 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
> >>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
> >>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
> >>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
> >>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
> >>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
> >>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
> >>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
> >>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
> >>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
> >>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>
> >>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
> >>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
> >>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
> >>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>
> >>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
> >>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
> >>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>
> >> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
> >> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
> >> of the input.
> >>
> >> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
> >> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>
> >> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >
> > Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> > obviously wrong,
> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.

The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^> reaches its own final state (if H and therefore embedded_H aborts its simulation, i.e. it is Ha / embedded_Ha), therefore the claim that "the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all" is FALSE..

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

<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29611&group=comp.theory#29611

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 16:51:47 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9875e55d8daa06cc2a53aa953015877e";
logging-data="16901"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8tUG1eo4coAPY9Kmwzm6i6RjS5+7duQ4="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vxog38eBEDtlObifDdMquxLW9f4=
sha1:DA1nAJSCselg5/8yvYQoT82Ae6w=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.4925c63e7225fcbb6cb0.20220407165147BST.87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:51 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>
>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>
>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>> of the input.
>>>
>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>
>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>> obviously wrong,
>
> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.

Yet you won't answer two simple questions! Why? Because unless
everyone accepts that the wrong answer is the right one, you dare not
say what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
P(P) halts or not (or for TMs, what string must be passed to H for it to
tell us whether Ĥ(Ĥ) halts or not). The other simple question being
what state H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> transitions to.

> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.

Of course not. You must avoid the main criticism, that H(P,P) == false
is simply wrong because P(P) halts at all costs. Don't talk about the
elephant in the room -- everyone must agree to put on virtual reality
googles first!

--
Ben.

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

<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29612&group=comp.theory#29612

 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, 07 Apr 2022 11:16:49 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:16:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-oh4vtuxs3h++7MiU0QXEIENqUxwHyZPxut+HKfDrnm+QH93e6V6rfBobu9bcXWhtk6czmhwHM41jQvl!ZKBFGs6fzZEg5p1wi88QqR8Hvj7ze7UvoIkSN5T/GU/MoLFAuwcNrsN/IPrJ+t5+JJUWKVuVFQCX!tg==
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: 6778
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:16 UTC

On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>
>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>>> of the input.
>>>>
>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>
>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>
>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>> obviously wrong,
>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>
> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>

Is not what I am talking about.

If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone else in the
universe disagrees you still have a white dog in your living room.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29613&group=comp.theory#29613

 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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 11:18:15 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:18:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 100
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-N86TisaZ12jdzpi9iEW7BmQ6phBqmR6d9r3T5IhU5uMW1gxVCGgfVKqQGlO6XzpL+CwyRNhf1CdqD9C!TVspdBoLnAqLgLtwD8UzMgwgQbAC2IRZAu7B8GDPTdkRQAcakGYzuwesQeX/0X6Z59iCLNCYzGDT!ew==
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: 6494
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:18 UTC

On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>
>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>>> of the input.
>>>>
>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>
>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>> obviously wrong,
>>
>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>
> Yet you won't answer two simple questions! Why?

Because I absolutely positively will not tolerate divergence from
validating my 17 years worth of work.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29614&group=comp.theory#29614

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:411e:b0:443:d734:df45 with SMTP id kc30-20020a056214411e00b00443d734df45mr12489533qvb.46.1649350375869;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 09:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d7cd:0:b0:63e:4e0c:371f with SMTP id
o196-20020a25d7cd000000b0063e4e0c371fmr3913655ybg.605.1649350375695; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 09:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com> <OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 16:52:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 98
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:52 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
> >>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
> >>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
> >>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
> >>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
> >>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
> >>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
> >>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
> >>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
> >>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
> >>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
> >>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
> >>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
> >>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>
> >>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
> >>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
> >>>> of the input.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
> >>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>
> >>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>
> >>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>> obviously wrong,
> >> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> >> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> >> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >
> > The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> Is not what I am talking about.
>

You said "under any condition at all", and UTM <H^><H^> is one of those conditions.

> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone else in the
> universe disagrees you still have a white dog in your living room.

You may have a white dog in your living room, but that doesn't matter if you're asked if there's a black cat in your kitchen.

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

<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29616&group=comp.theory#29616

 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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 12:02:20 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:02:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 105
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JZL8+F+MWcMcQdrlIJSHkRKrZ1j2506V+rUkKeYE0BoNSZo+OniQlzaA4GCXZ5XtLRIOPZzUGjzahOE!t8r1+8oWu/Dh8BlLx30vzlXX1JJE6/VI7RpdiJXljiewPm994YMIJTNhGijxhsiTkm2rfXQNWpgF!9g==
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: 7136
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:02 UTC

On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>
>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>
>
> You said "under any condition at all",

Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29617&group=comp.theory#29617

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:18a:b0:2e1:cea3:88e9 with SMTP id s10-20020a05622a018a00b002e1cea388e9mr12385708qtw.391.1649351354429;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:39a:b0:2e6:d7e2:c66c with SMTP id
bh26-20020a05690c039a00b002e6d7e2c66cmr13289443ywb.482.1649351354194; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!45.76.7.193.MISMATCH!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:09:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 131
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:09 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
> >>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
> >>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
> >>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
> >>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
> >>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
> >>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
> >>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
> >>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
> >>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
> >>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
> >>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
> >>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
> >>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> >>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> >>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>
> >>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>
> >
> > You said "under any condition at all",
> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?

So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if it's input reaches a final state?

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piece in dialogue ]

<t2n769$777$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29619&group=comp.theory#29619

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: news.dea...@darjeeling.plus.com (Mike Terry)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
key missing piece in dialogue ]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:31:53 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2n769$777$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<9d73989d-896c-420c-a5b4-c53ffc39f4b4n@googlegroups.com>
<87sfqqgu9t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2kgjs$1v70$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87h776gipq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fJKdnTnPVsBOfND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkxgaot.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXcbkbPsjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrlg5cd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <18SdnUsWQb0IudP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qy9g4kf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <E8OdnQpKTpRCttP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3d6ff0e6-b2ad-4a32-89c4-afab15e9685fn@googlegroups.com>
<cvOdnRt1oMyks9P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<11dcf817-f764-46b1-893b-a05636032622n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="7399"; posting-host="CC3uK9WYEoa7s1kzH7komw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.7.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Mike Terry - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:31 UTC

On 07/04/2022 01:24, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/6/2022 7:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:10:14 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... Your hobby seems to be posting here. Are you having fun
>>>>>>> posting here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am enjoying posting here because progress continues to occur.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's fine. I'd like to think I am helping to entertain you.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have
>>>>>> my whole proof boiled down to the correct understanding of a single
>>>>>> (very difficult to understand) sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the two questions you can't answer without it all
>>>>> unravelling!
>>>>>
>>>> You merely continue to greatly disrespectfully refuse to pay enough
>>>> attention:
>>>>
>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>
>>> But how can we verify that the input was correctly simulated?
>> The exection trace that is specified by its TM description.
>
> But another halt decider simulates the same input to completion. So the claim that the input "can never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all" is false:
>
> Given an embedded_H that aborts its simulation which we'll call embedded_Ha, is embedded_Ha (and therefore Ha) correct to reject <Ha^><Ha^>?
>
> Now we have Hb, which has the exact same halting criteria as Ha except it defers aborting for k steps. Hb simulates <Ha^><Ha^> and is able to reach the input's final state of <Ha^.qn> while remaining in UTM mode and accepts this input. This tells us that embedded_Ha is not correct to reject <Ha^><Ha^> because it aborted too soon.
>

PO really really really really really believes that when his simulator observes his "infinite
recursive behaviour" pattern, that really really really really means that the simulation is
exhibiting infinite recursive behaviour, and so would never halt however far it is continued.

It does not matter to PO that he has actually run the computation outside of the simulator, and
observed himself that the computation is halting!!!!!!

99.999999999% of the worlds population, in this situation, would have the intellectual capacity (and
intellectual honesty) to step back and say "gee, I really really really really really believed that
my infinite-behaviour-pattern was sound, BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT! - I'd better work out where I went
wrong..."

But PO doubles down, and says "despite concrete evidence to the contrary, my pattern MUST BE SOUND,
BECAUSE I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY BELIEVE IT IS, and that's the end of it! True, I have no
/proof/ that it is sound, and I'm incapable of even starting to work on such a proof, but that's Ok
- I don't need to /prove/ it's sound, because I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY BELIEVE IT. And anyone
with an understanding of CS would agree with me so what's the point of a proof?"

Yep, you really are arguing with a Deluded Dumbo, who's completely incapable of handling abstract
concepts and logical reasoning. (I think you know that, but want to do it anyway, which is your
choice to make of course, but I can't see your current approach achieving anything useful...)

Mike.

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

<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29621&group=comp.theory#29621

 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, 07 Apr 2022 12:37:13 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:37:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 110
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-izXo1AtivxnzBP7/mv5GMivTd52XXfe8YwTTLM7mGflp6/oqwmaQvaHx0EJT6pq5Xxfvk9UYl8e8dDt!FVnVqpN+R2RRkeMiRNwVLcRAEwlMCPRw42GlKvhgGyUFXKHfoy8GtJ582+rNx4hCUqlwk2CETFe1!Kw==
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: 7704
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:37 UTC

On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>
> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if it's input reaches a final state?

The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
excludes everything else in the whole universe.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ only look at the front door ]

<MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29623&group=comp.theory#29623

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.math sci.logic
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 12:43:52 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:43:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
only look at the front door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math,sci.logic
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<9d73989d-896c-420c-a5b4-c53ffc39f4b4n@googlegroups.com>
<87sfqqgu9t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2kgjs$1v70$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87h776gipq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <fJKdnTnPVsBOfND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkxgaot.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXcbkbPsjdP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87ilrlg5cd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <18SdnUsWQb0IudP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qy9g4kf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <E8OdnQpKTpRCttP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3d6ff0e6-b2ad-4a32-89c4-afab15e9685fn@googlegroups.com>
<cvOdnRt1oMyks9P_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<11dcf817-f764-46b1-893b-a05636032622n@googlegroups.com>
<t2n769$777$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2n769$777$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 80
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-CUNIggZoq3EbftXGpIqZ3xcL3Mkv95VXcXpHTsdnVV5F2LdsVYxm0xXbuh5dEZXQpQYYDPC0+YRPeQs!h0kOTbRNGZlmZJX59Pa3TVWjsnVy+4A/2qhEmkDkZjW6fsSGR/rI0TYni+UxBZniMdiemFku9Scc!yA==
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: 5509
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:43 UTC

On 4/7/2022 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 01:24, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:20:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2022 7:17 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 8:10:14 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... Your hobby seems to be posting here. Are you having fun
>>>>>>>> posting here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am enjoying posting here because progress continues to occur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's fine. I'd like to think I am helping to entertain you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have
>>>>>>> my whole proof boiled down to the correct understanding of a single
>>>>>>> (very difficult to understand) sentence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except for the two questions you can't answer without it all
>>>>>> unravelling!
>>>>>>
>>>>> You merely continue to greatly disrespectfully refuse to pay enough
>>>>> attention:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>
>>>> But how can we verify that the input was correctly simulated?
>>> The exection trace that is specified by its TM description.
>>
>> But another halt decider simulates the same input to completion.  So
>> the claim that the input "can never possibly reach its own final state
>> under any condition at all" is false:
>>
>> Given an embedded_H that aborts its simulation which we'll call
>> embedded_Ha, is embedded_Ha (and therefore Ha) correct to reject
>> <Ha^><Ha^>?
>>
>> Now we have Hb, which has the exact same halting criteria as Ha except
>> it defers aborting for k steps. Hb simulates <Ha^><Ha^> and is able to
>> reach the input's final state of <Ha^.qn> while remaining in UTM mode
>> and accepts this input. This tells us that embedded_Ha is not correct
>> to reject <Ha^><Ha^> because it aborted too soon.
>>
>
> PO really really really really really believes that when his simulator
> observes his "infinite recursive behaviour" pattern, that really really
> really really means that the simulation is exhibiting infinite recursive
> behaviour, and so would never halt however far it is continued.
>
> It does not matter to PO that he has actually run the computation
> outside of the simulator, and observed himself that the computation is
> halting!!!!!!
>
If you are a guard assigned to watch the front door any nothing comes in
the front door then you are correct to report that nothing has come in
the front door no matter what comes in anywhere else.

The actual behavior of the actual input to embedded_H is the front door.

The actual behavior of any damn thing else anywhere else IS NOT THE
FRONT DOOR.

embedded_H computes the mapping from its inputs
from its inputs
from its inputs
from its inputs
from its inputs
from its inputs not any damn other place else.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

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

<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29624&group=comp.theory#29624

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1279:b0:67e:e60:1bc4 with SMTP id b25-20020a05620a127900b0067e0e601bc4mr10027736qkl.374.1649354371710;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:ac1:0:b0:63d:9fd4:ebf4 with SMTP id
a1-20020a5b0ac1000000b0063d9fd4ebf4mr10680088ybr.648.1649354371519; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:59:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 144
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:59 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
> >>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
> >>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
> >>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
> >>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
> >>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
> >>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
> >>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> >>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> >>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >
> > So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if it's input reaches a final state?
> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> excludes everything else in the whole universe.

So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the same input? Then please show a specific example. If you don't, that will be taken as implicit acceptance that embedded_H and H are the same, and that any reference to embedded_H can be freely changed to H because they are the same..

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

<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29625&group=comp.theory#29625

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:00:54 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:00:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 116
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-R3yO+68Xb2rMwU07mqN8OutWNB2UdgRWdhgogpmUDieW7wL0ky5y6rDzjrWR+nMUnAoUDEGFMdNxuqW!BrdNgDWHU60mfRtZYNkCKbOxnJ9e6aNify13RV5oWXQFAoseFd1S12P8uC3Mu+BkhUXHFCqQf+yS!Xw==
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: 8147
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:00 UTC

On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>
>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if it's input reaches a final state?
>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>
> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the same input?

I am saying that H is off topic bitch.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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


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

<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29626&group=comp.theory#29626

 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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:04:34 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:04:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 152
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-RDqEonYCyBxR1sxVjXWBdyGTLXks1HqW1wGKS9kdDgKCPjGTW2eXL9KywMaG4W9tUk4Ckxln0YnPlyM!744eb1COQoJ5C/4rxg0yZiWpDh2bH7gOzGxTa//zAsehxwRdQPY4uXg2dC2PAz7MBC159qnYyjjE!VA==
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: 8869
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:04 UTC

On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>
>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>
>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>> same input?
>
> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>
STFU about it.


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

<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29627&group=comp.theory#29627

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:13ca:b0:2e1:a52f:18f4 with SMTP id p10-20020a05622a13ca00b002e1a52f18f4mr12730984qtk.412.1649354907802;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1382:b0:63d:be0c:2e7c with SMTP id
x2-20020a056902138200b0063dbe0c2e7cmr11725805ybu.122.1649354907574; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:08:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 178
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:08 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
> >>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
> >>>>>>>>>>> understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> rejection
> >>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
> >>>>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
> >>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input..
> >>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >>>>
> >>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
> >>>> it's input reaches a final state?
> >>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> >>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
> >>
> >> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
> >> same input?
> >
> > I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
> >
> STFU about it.


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

<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29629&group=comp.theory#29629

 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, 07 Apr 2022 13:23:54 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:23:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 162
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-zSkMp1Au9l+UHHHMNPqfSFLdkyjR68hqDEE7TuKiuxazstih5IOL8AX+jQSjIKAQxnPOYVtlpDcl2MA!yw8zd+TD7GVk6KQmYnlSOdWtb/ik3WIvHzDREmU0gEzd3k/THlSsmTxDtPn4T4cm2Pq52KnNr4rl!fA==
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: 9428
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:23 UTC

On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>> same input?
>>>
>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>
>> STFU about it.
>
> In other words,


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

<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29632&group=comp.theory#29632

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:150e:b0:67d:3243:12dd with SMTP id i14-20020a05620a150e00b0067d324312ddmr10311108qkk.229.1649357113964;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 11:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:4b53:0:b0:2eb:5524:f15b with SMTP id
y80-20020a814b53000000b002eb5524f15bmr13088240ywa.302.1649357113801; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 11:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com> <OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com> <zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com> <crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com> <CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:45:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 203
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:45 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
> >>>>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
> >>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
> >>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> >>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
> >>>>
> >>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
> >>>> same input?
> >>>
> >>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
> >>>
> >> STFU about it.
> >
> > In other words,
> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>
> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.


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

<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29633&group=comp.theory#29633

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:47:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:47:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 166
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-AozRjvNTkeACZl7FE66YbMb5iZNhAA377ug8t7LvOxLdWwHbIOK4CVDo2BVOsfKSh6rFW1dZHLqCnoG!sjxZhIAGUua7op7+AlFTT16nQ5Ijq4K7YmpY67+TPPQx3tC2BYcLVh7yaOoaXosEc/Xc6WLTh8ay!iQ==
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: 9970
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:47 UTC

On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>
>>>> STFU about it.
>>>
>>> In other words,
>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>
>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>
> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,


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

<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29634&group=comp.theory#29634

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:454b:b0:67e:4202:32b8 with SMTP id u11-20020a05620a454b00b0067e420232b8mr10513796qkp.278.1649357496977;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:cc08:0:b0:63d:2c6d:162 with SMTP id
l8-20020a25cc08000000b0063d2c6d0162mr11607648ybf.137.1649357496812; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com> <OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com> <zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com> <crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com> <CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:51:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:51 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P)..
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
> >>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
> >>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> >>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
> >>>>>> same input?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
> >>>>>
> >>>> STFU about it.
> >>>
> >>> In other words,
> >> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
> >> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>
> >> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
> >
> > So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
> I have done no such thing.


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

<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29635&group=comp.theory#29635

 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, 07 Apr 2022 13:54:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:54:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 170
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-VHvrRLY6xk019JmLrVXmCJ5w1kim7Nhc/edHHoqL5+hEA71X9pulSoxA6I6NHqtF2EY3rUSpAfjU7XH!Sn7nMb5M28mtTQiQ/eRrXh8HQEg3MxGafzEvc56WXP8SMZ+XqgjqLlQKbpGYC+puMFLrm2N67v/8!6A==
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: 10519
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:54 UTC

On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words,
>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>
>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>>
>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>> I have done no such thing.
>
> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.


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

<fbGdnblJIp5xqNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29638&group=comp.theory#29638

 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: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:05:16 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:05:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <fbGdnblJIp5xqNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 201
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Sr4vNrEk3nWt2JWW6S5dDAHrHynbfhfjkZ15ViBniZfewVEiXWFSl7NY5gU2G+ORIf0XOaTv/YjKevA!K7OkDwuVyncXzLBkEsqOI1aJkfTwqWv0jI4qNJ/hlZYaGwC1ZqQoePoAiWSu15Ese7x3o6M1RGYD!bg==
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: 11369
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:05 UTC

On 4/7/2022 1:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fib when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth
>>>>>>>>>>> for if
>>>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and
>>>>>>>>>> explicitly
>>>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words,
>>>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>>> I have done no such thing.
>>
>> Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different
>> results from the same input, yes you have.
>
> Liar !!!
>


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

<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29639&group=comp.theory#29639

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:570c:0:b0:2e1:ee0c:71c5 with SMTP id 12-20020ac8570c000000b002e1ee0c71c5mr13097432qtw.365.1649358455446;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:154a:b0:639:fdd5:2f94 with SMTP id
r10-20020a056902154a00b00639fdd52f94mr11831757ybu.320.1649358455233; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 12:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com> <UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com> <i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com> <W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 19:07:35 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 223
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:07 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:57 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
> >>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
> >>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
> >>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and explicitly
> >>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
> >>>>>>>> same input?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> STFU about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In other words,
> >>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
> >>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> >>>>
> >>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
> >>>
> >>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
> >> I have done no such thing.
> >
> > Until you provide an example of H and embedded_H giving different results from the same input, yes you have.
> Liar !!!


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor