Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

There can be no twisted thought without a twisted molecule. -- R. W. Gerard


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

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]

<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29640&group=comp.theory#29640

 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 14:18:56 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:18:56 -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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 184
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-g4lyjgqxDRlMKekHXB1CjoxiQCimwfgbXPl7yjPUnSZD9JQGSWVhBnNI6xfdmyv8NnAIeO4Z3gI9FDN!AjPoq+qx4KVEuBWxzwgTiCsrPtwL30LaKiWU9obn4uy93egghi/cfffP5vySyZFKxNPCwqeCYjeE!yQ==
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: 11387
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:18 UTC

On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> 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 !!!
>
> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.


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

<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29641&group=comp.theory#29641

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5c66:0:b0:443:5f43:2a5d with SMTP id i6-20020ad45c66000000b004435f432a5dmr12848917qvh.90.1649360316824;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 12:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ed46:0:b0:2eb:4513:3f4 with SMTP id
w67-20020a0ded46000000b002eb451303f4mr13095101ywe.134.1649360316659; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 12:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.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 12:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_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>
<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> <8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@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 19:38:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 230
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:38 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > 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 !!!
> >
> > This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case..
> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>
> STFU about H !!!
> 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.


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

<wJ-dnUWLhbL_3NL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29642&group=comp.theory#29642

 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 14:54:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:54:10 -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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <wJ-dnUWLhbL_3NL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 186
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-jkObNSyinCR3G/Vv3jn7b857Bx+ACHSMznAhcASTTRgyH2Y+qtikDTaC6dRGuA4uWlGxP1GksvmRdI6!l9kOFpNdQ68qc1P9GQRC0GqZjcns6KTnzH8OunB5tP3f6z96RRgqil4Zb2Reg16PW/dzqFrOU5yU!YQ==
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: 11869
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:54 UTC

On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> 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 !!!
>>>
>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>
>> STFU about H !!!
>> 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.
>
> Because embedded_H is the same as H


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

<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29643&group=comp.theory#29643

 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 14:57:56 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 14:57:55 -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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 189
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-uE84F0wi4Z2l4D0KuhaO8UZSWRU2R6EKSiSFr9ZWKuBmn/LQvwRg5f2ZyCQJwYQ9SkDCZpte5bzxfMa!GD2TuHPz6duE5NBXOy0eWaKaV6OFSU6QesYzeBSz33wpIy6pQtwnUnMsoTDunXD0MrSn7BB3IBEU!nA==
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: 12039
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:57 UTC

On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> 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 !!!
>>>
>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>
>> STFU about H !!!
>> 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.
>
> Because embedded_H is the same as H


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

<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29644&group=comp.theory#29644

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:b442:0:b0:69a:fc75:ca52 with SMTP id d63-20020a37b442000000b0069afc75ca52mr399504qkf.730.1649361646369;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:6c89:0:b0:2e6:beec:2968 with SMTP id
h131-20020a816c89000000b002e6beec2968mr13341172ywc.267.1649361646159; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.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 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@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 20:00:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 264
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 20:00 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> 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 !!!
> >>>
> >>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>
> >> STFU about H !!!
> >> 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.
> >
> > Because embedded_H is the same as H
> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> sequence of configurations


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

<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29645&group=comp.theory#29645

 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 15:04:41 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:04:40 -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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 193
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XTUP0OdqbA49/jNcqT7PAy+wfpP9iL9aN4vhoXht213bcmYKd4GNcpebmmrM9VMr0Ud45mo3fMnCQuh!mphuhRoCciU8lZblU+4RZWiZ8J5J16qZsptdmeIs/ojc8q/Zade2Rb5kxlSDHz+/d1ta5XH/bbdb!vw==
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: 12566
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 20:04 UTC

On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> 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 !!!
>>>>>
>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>
>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>> sequence of configurations
>
> It does not:
>
So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
Good luck with the twisted bullshit you need to show that.


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

<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29646&group=comp.theory#29646

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5c85:0:b0:2e2:3211:92e9 with SMTP id r5-20020ac85c85000000b002e2321192e9mr13599297qta.386.1649362919973;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 13:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:213:0:b0:63e:7f26:e884 with SMTP id
19-20020a250213000000b0063e7f26e884mr1404936ybc.242.1649362919770; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 13:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.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 13:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@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 20:21:59 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 253
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 20:21 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> 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 !!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>>>
> >>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >> sequence of configurations
> >
> > It does not:
> >
> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?


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

<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29647&group=comp.theory#29647

 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 16:17:38 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:17:37 -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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 212
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1YeJ5lmN9WhLLWBmxptXOurBUIC9CB+Qez4kvoOmWiHF1Qgo4jfUJ1NzAd3yB9HYA+mss3hi0Su5PBV!YKRcXClamwGBE3zxptqozr7ValoWY7wlJdI9zIWBA4yNwQq8wpOajBCtqzdhYNsAmJvgfpHo9Aue!0Q==
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: 13581
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:17 UTC

On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> 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 !!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>
>>> It does not:
>>>
>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>
> Yep.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ only look at the front door ]

<t2nlfk$a4l$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29649&group=comp.theory#29649

 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) [
only look at the front door ]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:35:48 +0100
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2nlfk$a4l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
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>
<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> <MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="10389"; 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 21:35 UTC

On 07/04/2022 18:43, olcott wrote:
> 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.

You know, your response above is exactly the kind of thing a Dumbo would say! The childish
repitition, pointless analogies, disconnect from the text to which it's responding - it's all
there... :)

Mike.

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

<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29650&group=comp.theory#29650

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:13ca:b0:2e1:a52f:18f4 with SMTP id p10-20020a05622a13ca00b002e1a52f18f4mr13419525qtk.412.1649367448386;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 14:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:4b53:0:b0:2eb:5524:f15b with SMTP id
y80-20020a814b53000000b002eb5524f15bmr13692397ywa.302.1649367448146; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 14:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
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!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 14:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com> <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@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 21:37:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 295
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:37 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> 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 !!!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >>>> sequence of configurations
> >>>
> >>> It does not:
> >>>
> >> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >
> > Yep.
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>
> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ only look at the front door ]

<07adndOtqbRqxtL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29651&group=comp.theory#29651

 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 16:47:35 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:47:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [
only look at the front 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>
<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$1@gioia.aioe.org> <MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t2nlfk$a4l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2nlfk$a4l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <07adndOtqbRqxtL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 110
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-A3C4cRhF2P5zvzzt3aGg0gyhHH41RVnbr+zKPYb03dL7toCoIIRAZMp/pX9SHJ+QJkcdg0DZ6GKbND9!6dSSFpftA9xKcQLO7liUbi+w3NP2LVaUOcBAR4z1fqfrGAsbeab+qDvT5qAHb8WUV9dwoMwXYm+K!SQ==
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: 6748
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:47 UTC

On 4/7/2022 4:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 18:43, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> You know, your response above is exactly the kind of thing a Dumbo would
> say!  The childish repitition, pointless analogies, disconnect from the
> text to which it's responding - it's all there...   :)
>
>
> Mike.

It is as obvious (to me) as a smack in the face with a Boston Cream Pie
that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly ever reach its own final state
of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn

Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩

Is a simple execution trace absolutely far beyond the intellectual
capacity of everyone else here?

I think not. What does that leave? They are liars.

--
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 ]

<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29652&group=comp.theory#29652

 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 16:51:35 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:51:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 225
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-CNj3vVklPYA/gtJBpsmCrkHMKWWS18/Kvmi6j5gME3bq9KDYBu18CDjZ4GquoUOpRCKJUifkU0NYT5M!59UYNLYUoC6EyI9hdIk7d7O8GS1Uimf+cggG3kWm3YCo2sdpv/21be0IlSwr6yTgth03ikRH5rUc!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: 14737
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:51 UTC

On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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 !!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>
>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>
>>> Yep.
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>
>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>
>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>
> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.


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

<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29653&group=comp.theory#29653

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:578b:0:b0:2e2:324a:7b6c with SMTP id v11-20020ac8578b000000b002e2324a7b6cmr13725178qta.267.1649369911627;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 15:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:75c6:0:b0:2eb:66cd:4e21 with SMTP id
q189-20020a8175c6000000b002eb66cd4e21mr13858518ywc.148.1649369911457; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 15:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com> <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com> <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@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 22:18:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 305
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:18 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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 !!!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >>>>>> sequence of configurations
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does not:
> >>>>>
> >>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >>>
> >>> Yep.
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>
> >> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> >> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
> >>
> >> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >
> > Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
> a halting computation.
>
> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
> intuition.
>
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩


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

<181da3a0-fe5c-41ca-8467-b15ef0b3824an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29654&group=comp.theory#29654

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:643:0:b0:67d:3188:24f2 with SMTP id 64-20020a370643000000b0067d318824f2mr11607369qkg.48.1649370278891;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:f883:0:b0:2d0:ee66:5f97 with SMTP id
i125-20020a0df883000000b002d0ee665f97mr13248231ywf.313.1649370278663; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.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 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com> <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com> <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <181da3a0-fe5c-41ca-8467-b15ef0b3824an@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 22:24:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 17136
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:24 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 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 !!!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >>>>>> sequence of configurations
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does not:
> >>>>>
> >>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >>>
> >>> Yep.
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>
> >> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> >> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
> >>
> >> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >
> > Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
> a halting computation.
>
> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
> intuition.
>
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩


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

<t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29655&group=comp.theory#29655

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 16:36:55 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:36:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f909b99a4b8980086934fca94b672d9";
logging-data="13832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Z0Ar214dcM8/Lp0qzUh4r"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Odoc1/alG7QrqYXX+Q0yBMh1dYw=
In-Reply-To: <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:36 UTC

On 2022-04-07 15:17, olcott wrote:

> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>
> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.

That isn't an 'execution trace'. It's a bare-bones outline of what
happens. Moreover, it is not an *accurate* outline of what happens.

> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>    (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>    (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩

Your (b) should read H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ until either Ĥ0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
completed (in which case the computation goes to H.qy) or until H
decides to discontinue the simulation (in which case the computation
goes to H.qn and halts)

> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>    (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Again, your (c) should read Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0
simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ until either Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is completed (in which case the
computation goes to H0.qy) or until H0 decides to abort the simulation.
(in which case the computation goes to H0.qn and halts)

>    (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩

And again, this is inaccurate. I'll leave fixing it as an exercise for you.

Every one of your Hs (H, H0, H1…) possesses the ability to stop the
simulation, so you cannot possibly claim that this shows an infinite
series of nested simulations.

An accurate "execution trace" would necessarily include the actual
instructions where H decides whether to continue or abort its
simulation. Without including that, the above doesn't illustrate
anything at all.

André

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

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

<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29656&group=comp.theory#29656

 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 17:46:31 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:46:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 232
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HqBEX4ExMC/oKWIUGkcFsdtoiOCXYyhvvW+B4CWP2QSSczNgxxmCxaJFTgbmCCkv5NQ+kI2bbQnJBRh!f/6LGYZa53NFecnhbGq7e52mSmGZAFp5VsDVjxjDK59PAvneT0BNXbBjyKqC6mEfMih5xqkHSOyb!zA==
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: 15702
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:46 UTC

On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>
>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
>> a halting computation.
>>
>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
>> intuition.
>>
>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>
> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.


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

<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29657&group=comp.theory#29657

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:2cf:b0:2e2:14ac:6f1b with SMTP id a15-20020a05622a02cf00b002e214ac6f1bmr13511088qtx.557.1649371885653;
Thu, 07 Apr 2022 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1382:b0:63d:be0c:2e7c with SMTP id
x2-20020a056902138200b0063dbe0c2e7cmr12597927ybu.122.1649371885491; Thu, 07
Apr 2022 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.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 15:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com> <o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com> <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com> <VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com> <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com> <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com> <u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@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 22:51:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 324
 by: Dennis Bush - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:51 UTC

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 !!!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
> >>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
> >>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
> >>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
> >>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It does not:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yep.
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
> >>>>
> >>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
> >>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
> >>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> >>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
> >>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
> >>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
> >>>
> >>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
> >> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
> >> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0..n⟩ then that proves that it is not
> >> a halting computation.
> >>
> >> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
> >> intuition.
> >>
> >> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
> >
> > ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
> is not a halting computation.


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

<t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29658&group=comp.theory#29658

 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!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:55:05 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:55:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-J4bKAbOnHw8hVAkCXkk2vnX9DB+7xlf4sgAMGBzYL+pxFcOtSOQaK7K0887/Qs4QGUuA2z2jf8Ro9K+!91OIF6gvyU3jvUPjygV1CpqLWO2+NidGiu+YR+8TIdmQ3gAmJERBGWpPUG3+n2oVD7dzuuQF0Z6I!UQ==
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: 4781
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:55 UTC

On 4/7/2022 5:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-07 15:17, olcott wrote:
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>
>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>> would transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>
> That isn't an 'execution trace'. It's a bare-bones outline of what
> happens. Moreover, it is not an *accurate* outline of what happens.
>
>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>     (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>     (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>
> Your (b) should read H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ until either Ĥ0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
> completed (in which case the computation goes to H.qy) or until H
> decides to discontinue the simulation (in which case the computation
> goes to H.qn and halts)
>
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>     (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>
> Again, your (c) should read Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0
> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ until either Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is completed (in which case the
> computation goes to H0.qy) or until H0 decides to abort the simulation.
> (in which case the computation goes to H0.qn and halts)
>
>>     (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>
> And again, this is inaccurate. I'll leave fixing it as an exercise for you.
>

Your "corrections" are totally incorrect.

> Every one of your Hs (H, H0, H1…) possesses the ability to stop the
> simulation,

Yet none of provide the capability for their simulated input to reach
its own final state.

> so you cannot possibly claim that this shows an infinite
> series of nested simulations.
>

Is this really over your head?
Go back and look at what I said before you screwed it all up with your
"corrections".

> An accurate "execution trace" would necessarily include the actual
> instructions where H decides whether to continue or abort its
> simulation. Without including that,

> the above doesn't illustrate
> anything at all.

That is a psychotic thing to say. Providing less than 100% of the
details is not at all the freaking same thing as providing 0% of the
details. Have you got deception welded into to your brain?

--
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 ]

<t_SdnY7uuvv78dL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29659&group=comp.theory#29659

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 17:57:42 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:57:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e0ea227c-6761-4a6e-a9c5-eb30304e5c93n@googlegroups.com>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8a79b5c6-826a-440f-8469-b222c055548dn@googlegroups.com>
<u8CdnXIcU9Va9NL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <10c9ba24-251a-4425-8e33-854d56f91ef7n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <t_SdnY7uuvv78dL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 238
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-gFTGfxGpj/UgZkCPNWhag2sz7ptqCbYgl5NboOuyqr8rYzQc24z89vzMD6QQFHY62pfnuGMtCHf+8We!IDuuZjuJZxmwrIrLUMGYrth9xtTo9D3rEzrTEWKlPZ4zLKX66S2eAeio7G6xVa/PMZvdJ5BQMlX5!UQ==
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: 16470
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:57 UTC

On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:46:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 5:18 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:51:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 4:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:17:44 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 4:04:48 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 3:00 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:58:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:38 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:19:03 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 2:07 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is when everyone watching sees that you know you don't have a case.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I tolerate the slightest microscopic divergence from the point at
>>>>>>>>>>>> hand you will never understand what I am saying in a million years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> STFU about H !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because embedded_H is the same as H
>>>>>>>>>> Because the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> sequence of configurations
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the simulated input can possibly reach its own final state?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yep.
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ would
>>>>>> transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>> (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>> (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>> (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you're talking about Hn which never aborts.
>>>> All that I am saying is that if the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own final state of ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩ then that proves that it is not
>>>> a halting computation.
>>>>
>>>> You are saying know I must be wrong because that goes against your
>>>> intuition.
>>>>
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>> SHOW ME WHERE ⟨Ĥ0⟩ TRANSITIONS TO ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ OR ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩
>>>
>>> ⟨Ĥn0⟩ never does transition to a final state. And yes Ĥn applies to ⟨Ĥn⟩ does not halt. But Hn is unable to report that fact because it can't abort its simulation and is therefore wrong by default.
>> The fact that the input: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to embedded_H cannot possibly reach its
>> final state under any condition what-so-ever conclusively proves that it
>> is not a halting computation.
>
> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting. But Hn can't report that.


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

<t2nqdq$432$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29660&group=comp.theory#29660

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:00:10 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <t2nqdq$432$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
<t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:00:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f909b99a4b8980086934fca94b672d9";
logging-data="4194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DmfHmgTc71qkOupUuPqZn"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WFMRjoncWIONq3wmqB/VvmLrk/4=
In-Reply-To: <t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:00 UTC

On 2022-04-07 16:55, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 5:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-07 15:17, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>
>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>> would transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>
>> That isn't an 'execution trace'. It's a bare-bones outline of what
>> happens. Moreover, it is not an *accurate* outline of what happens.
>>
>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>     (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>     (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>
>> Your (b) should read H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ until either Ĥ0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>> completed (in which case the computation goes to H.qy) or until H
>> decides to discontinue the simulation (in which case the computation
>> goes to H.qn and halts)
>>
>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>     (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>
>> Again, your (c) should read Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0
>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ until either Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is completed (in which case
>> the computation goes to H0.qy) or until H0 decides to abort the
>> simulation. (in which case the computation goes to H0.qn and halts)
>>
>>>     (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>
>> And again, this is inaccurate. I'll leave fixing it as an exercise for
>> you.
>>
>
> Your "corrections" are totally incorrect.

How so? They are based entirely on *your* description of how your
alleged halt decider works.

André

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

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

<c2K3K.209626$4JN7.131350@fx05.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29661&group=comp.theory#29661

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx05.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) [
only look at the front 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>
<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> <MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <MK6dncaqt-5Fv9L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <c2K3K.209626$4JN7.131350@fx05.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 19:00:24 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5639
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:00 UTC

On 4/7/22 1:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Except that their boss doesn't know the front from the back.

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

Right, which is, BY DEFINITION, the behavior of H^ applied to <H^>,
which will Halt if H applied to <H^> <H^> goes to Qn as claimed.

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

Right, like the behavior that embedded_H simulates from its input.

>
> 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.
>

Right, and the ACTUAL behavior of the inputs isn't the same thing as the
PARTIAL simulation by embedded_H, so ebmbedded_H ended up guarding the
wrong door and was wrong about its answer.

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

<_ICdnRspmoqP89L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29662&group=comp.theory#29662

 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 18:04:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:04:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
<t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2nqdq$432$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2nqdq$432$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <_ICdnRspmoqP89L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 64
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-y8E/hmiht0X0GyhfB6JcJpB24CVpAoi00R/lBkrST0hxDkJTCuK9bpW2QsnZRK/jZwjZsXyiClZlv0L!tcslp3eoNs2HqpQchR1a8VD62YdugMxNK75Pk/ffVTSIDT8Nxcj3POf0PqQevXgV9S7z/KrahtGg!/g==
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: 4740
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:04 UTC

On 4/7/2022 6:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-07 16:55, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 5:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-07 15:17, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>
>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>> would transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>
>>> That isn't an 'execution trace'. It's a bare-bones outline of what
>>> happens. Moreover, it is not an *accurate* outline of what happens.
>>>
>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>     (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>     (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>
>>> Your (b) should read H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ until either Ĥ0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>> completed (in which case the computation goes to H.qy) or until H
>>> decides to discontinue the simulation (in which case the computation
>>> goes to H.qn and halts)
>>>
>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>     (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>
>>> Again, your (c) should read Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0
>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ until either Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is completed (in which case
>>> the computation goes to H0.qy) or until H0 decides to abort the
>>> simulation. (in which case the computation goes to H0.qn and halts)
>>>
>>>>     (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>
>>> And again, this is inaccurate. I'll leave fixing it as an exercise
>>> for you.
>>>
>>
>> Your "corrections" are totally incorrect.
>
> How so? They are based entirely on *your* description of how your
> alleged halt decider works.
>
> André
>

These are the actual first four steps.

Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩

From these four steps we can see that ⟨Ĥ0⟩ never reaches its final
state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ thus never halts.

--
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 ]

<t2nrd8$p70$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29663&group=comp.theory#29663

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:16:54 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <t2nrd8$p70$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e0933c8a-0c19-4e96-884a-5ef48c8dc1a8n@googlegroups.com>
<W4adnSbpjeTnrtL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
<t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2nqdq$432$1@dont-email.me>
<_ICdnRspmoqP89L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:16:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="6f909b99a4b8980086934fca94b672d9";
logging-data="25824"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WPtw14XuEyMzcP2QuPVcL"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rwlgsDV0yLrbnYytGQCXKcFs7rw=
In-Reply-To: <_ICdnRspmoqP89L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:16 UTC

On 2022-04-07 17:04, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 6:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-04-07 16:55, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 5:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2022-04-07 15:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>> would transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't an 'execution trace'. It's a bare-bones outline of what
>>>> happens. Moreover, it is not an *accurate* outline of what happens.
>>>>
>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>     (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>     (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>
>>>> Your (b) should read H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ until either Ĥ0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>> completed (in which case the computation goes to H.qy) or until H
>>>> decides to discontinue the simulation (in which case the computation
>>>> goes to H.qn and halts)
>>>>
>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>     (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>
>>>> Again, your (c) should read Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0
>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ until either Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is completed (in which case
>>>> the computation goes to H0.qy) or until H0 decides to abort the
>>>> simulation. (in which case the computation goes to H0.qn and halts)
>>>>
>>>>>     (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>
>>>> And again, this is inaccurate. I'll leave fixing it as an exercise
>>>> for you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your "corrections" are totally incorrect.
>>
>> How so? They are based entirely on *your* description of how your
>> alleged halt decider works.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> These are the actual first four steps.
>
> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>    H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>    Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>    Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>
> From these four steps we can see that ⟨Ĥ0⟩ never reaches its final
> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ thus never halts.

If those are the actual steps, then how on earth does the topmost H
manage to "correctly" decide that its input is non-halting?

According to what you write above the topmost H simply simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩
⟨Ĥ1⟩ which, according to you, never ends, meaning the topmost H also
never ends.

The "trace" you give above is what you would get if H were an actual
UTM. But H *isn't* a UTM, it is a simulating halt decider. Ergo its
behaviour won't match that of a UTM.

André

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

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

<jaadnfz32JDD79L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29664&group=comp.theory#29664

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:23:10 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:23:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<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>
<8be39aff-211d-4bd8-ab6c-e20c04ce27aan@googlegroups.com>
<o6CdnRI_dqq9pNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a01c542d-a304-4c93-bab0-2754f9107761n@googlegroups.com>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<d80b5ae3-7a01-470b-8fd5-2ba0b9155e2fn@googlegroups.com>
<VeOdnVB44dRE3tL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<f80eca4c-f2a2-4a9c-877e-874e9442c7bfn@googlegroups.com>
<FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2np28$dg8$1@dont-email.me>
<t_SdnY_uuvtU9tL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2nqdq$432$1@dont-email.me>
<_ICdnRspmoqP89L_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <t2nrd8$p70$1@dont-email.me>
Followup-To: comp.theory
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2nrd8$p70$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jaadnfz32JDD79L_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 87
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DrgH5zV9dN1Qv74es6LG7sOhphm9qwIj3IC9QCIlye6tY+feeYQOxpWXeX4T3KN+n+uXGuMIShfo7zZ!kHcS+UPoicX9YXHZ+MuUr3m7hCQPOwHHaqRq4SVKMBzngWsblnC6iufJIywcohxd8WZtQML8OeSM!lg==
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: 5764
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:23 UTC

On 4/7/2022 6:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-07 17:04, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 6:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-07 16:55, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:36 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-04-07 15:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qy
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show exactly where in this execution trace that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>> would transition to ⟨Ĥ0.y⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.n⟩.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't an 'execution trace'. It's a bare-bones outline of what
>>>>> happens. Moreover, it is not an *accurate* outline of what happens.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>     (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>>>>>     (b) H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Your (b) should read H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩ until either Ĥ0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ is
>>>>> completed (in which case the computation goes to H.qy) or until H
>>>>> decides to discontinue the simulation (in which case the
>>>>> computation goes to H.qn and halts)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>>>>>     (c) Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, your (c) should read Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then
>>>>> H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ until either Ĥ1 ⟨Ĥ2⟩ is completed (in which
>>>>> case the computation goes to H0.qy) or until H0 decides to abort
>>>>> the simulation. (in which case the computation goes to H0.qn and
>>>>> halts)
>>>>>
>>>>>>     (d) Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>>>>
>>>>> And again, this is inaccurate. I'll leave fixing it as an exercise
>>>>> for you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your "corrections" are totally incorrect.
>>>
>>> How so? They are based entirely on *your* description of how your
>>> alleged halt decider works.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> These are the actual first four steps.
>>
>> Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>     Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ0⟩ to ⟨Ĥ1⟩ then
>>     H simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩ ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>>     Ĥ0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then H0 simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>     Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then H1 simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>>
>>  From these four steps we can see that ⟨Ĥ0⟩ never reaches its final
>> state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ thus never halts.
>
> If those are the actual steps, then how on earth does the topmost H
> manage to "correctly" decide that its input is non-halting?
>
> According to what you write above the topmost H simply simulates ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ which, according to you, never ends, meaning the topmost H also
> never ends.
>
> The "trace" you give above is what you would get if H were an actual
> UTM. But H *isn't* a UTM, it is a simulating halt decider. Ergo its
> behaviour won't match that of a UTM.
>
> André
>

The whole point here is that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ never reaches its final
state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ thus never halts.

All of the other things that you bring up are mere distractions away
from this actual point.

--
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 ]

<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29665&group=comp.theory#29665

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:37:17 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@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>
<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_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="ada6a80a29d158862aa79e3192f967b1";
logging-data="16450"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1952tsQ/YcaBi4yOQKVopbG4Ie9L9jXmPU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oR3EA/H4Uzju01wXB/tdmxUvyNA=
sha1:XHipbwnyjW1yMPap3ilaOXNHUws=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.5229c87700eda032fdb8.20220408003717BST.87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:37 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>
>> Yet you won't answer two simple questions! Why?
>
> Because I absolutely positively will not tolerate divergence from
> validating my 17 years worth of work.

But you have no choice but to tolerate it. If someone wants to talk
about why you are wrong, they will do so.

You are wrong (for the C version of H) because H(P,P) == false but P(P)
halts. You are wrong about your TM H because H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> transitions to
qn, but Ĥ applied to <Ĥ> is a halting computation. (Feel free to deny
any of these facts if the mood takes you.)

This is why -- yes! the questions! -- you won't say what string must be
passed to H for H to tell us whether Ĥ applied to <Ĥ> halts or not, and
you won't say what state H <Ĥ> <Ĥ> transitions to.

BTW, have you given up on the exercises?

--
Ben.

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor