Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all." -- Nathaniel Branden


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 ]

<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29666&group=comp.theory#29666

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:45:28 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:45:27 -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>
<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>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 47
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ztbI1fOxHyePRiWNQEveW8CdOnnvSY3PEsjv12yDsqruxTpFJQYNZ6kfdtoGPBR7WmrPayFN5AT7EA9!Jx9XTaA6wROpgqlUiG8yiUVDkxtn6vVcmn+kLt3xn5H0hKlTF4RPh0mSp7+4n3ctIbbUMexHuFSz!Ag==
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: 3883
 by: olcott - Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:45 UTC

On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 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.)
>

If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ then you must show how
this occurs.

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 the simulated ⟨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 ]

<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29670&group=comp.theory#29670

 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 02:14:54 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@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="11078"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mkUKzt2FV3sxhtNBBSuZH97czuJa4Zz0="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CKsJN9LdQ8g7vjjrEWafD2GiCXg=
sha1:NI25bdZF/cUmcYxl0C1Kii3urg0=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.8f51c0b86248430bb663.20220408021454BST.87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 01:14 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...

I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.

I also believe that you can't answer these questions because you know
the answers to them also show you to be wrong.

What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and what state does H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transition to?

--
Ben.

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

<JGM3K.547813$7F2.87838@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29676&group=comp.theory#29676

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.neodome.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.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>
<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> <07adndOtqbRqxtL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <07adndOtqbRqxtL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <JGM3K.547813$7F2.87838@fx12.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 22:00:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7558
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:00 UTC

On 4/7/22 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>

Yes, that trace shows that this H^ applied to <H^> being non-halting. It
also shows that this H/embedded_H applied to <H^> <H^> never answers, so
while it WOULD be correct for it to have returned a non-halting answer,
it didn't, so it was not correct.

Now, if you CHANGE H/embedded_H to abort, then you also change H^, and
the above trace is NOT what you get. In THAT case, the steps do NOT keep
repeating, but at some point the first copy of embedded_H aborts its
simuation and goes to Qn, and then the H^ that it was part of Halts, and
thus we see that this embedded_H was INCORRECT, as ITS H^ applied to
<H^> is Halting.

You aren't allowed to change H/embedded_H without also changing H^, due
to the rules for making H^, to do so is to just be a LIAR.

FAIL.

You need to decide WHICH version of H / embedded_H you are claiming is
right, because each is wrong for a different reason, and you can't build
a single machine that does both. THAT is just using PO-Magic based on
the believe of Fairy Dust Powerer Unicorns.

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

<pIM3K.547815$7F2.350917@fx12.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29677&group=comp.theory#29677

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder5.feed.usenet.farm!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!fx12.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(11) [ key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <pIM3K.547815$7F2.350917@fx12.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 22:01:57 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6417
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:01 UTC

On 4/7/22 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim
>>>>>>>>>>>> for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show
>>>>>>>>>>>> others that
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>> false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your living
>>>>>>>>>>> room.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the
>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting computation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>> Yes!  The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not.  Did you tell a fib when you
>>>>>> said it
>>>>>> does?  Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state under
>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and every
>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts.  Until you retract that, I will take
>>>>>> it to
>>>>>> be true.  You also told us that H(P,P) == false.  Do you need to
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state under any
>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>
>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>> P(P) halts or not?  (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>
>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>> of the input.
>>>
>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>
>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>
>> Of course you will.  You can't answer the question without being
>> obviously wrong,
>
> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>
> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>
>

Nope. You are just wrong as previously been shown.

THE CORRECT simulation of <H^> <H^> WILL HALT if H applied to <H^> <H^>
goes to Qn, and it it doesn't it fails for not answering.

The problem is that the simulation by H is NOT the CORRECT simulation of
the input, as an aborted simulation NEVER is.

FAIL.

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

<7MM3K.340762$Gojc.27602@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29678&group=comp.theory#29678

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.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(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndUxIuQ1h9f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w-edndQxIuTUhtf_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <7MM3K.340762$Gojc.27602@fx99.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 22:05:55 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7514
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:05 UTC

On 4/7/22 12:16 PM, 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.

Then you aren't talking about Halting but just your POOP.

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

Unless you ony THINK you have a white dog in your living room and are
ignoring that everyone one is telly you that what you have is a skunk.
That just proves you have lost contact with reality.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A CORRECT HALT DECIDER. THAT IS JUST A FIGMENT OF YOUR
IMAGINATION. The fact that you don't see that just shows how stupid you
are and that you just don't know what you are talking about.

It also proves you don't have a clue about what Truth actually is, since
you think it comes out of your own deluded mind, which it does not.

That is the thinking of a insane person.

FAIL.

FAIL.

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

<aNM3K.150494$8V_7.59544@fx04.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29679&group=comp.theory#29679

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
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>
<87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <aNM3K.150494$8V_7.59544@fx04.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:07:00 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7317
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:07 UTC

On 4/7/22 1:02 PM, 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, not actually related to Halting, since embeded_H isn't a halting
decide, just a POOP decider.

FAIL.

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

<5PM3K.340763$Gojc.260000@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29680&group=comp.theory#29680

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!nntp.speedium.network!feeder01!81.171.65.13.MISMATCH!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.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(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a9ebbb15-e960-4baf-a4df-d8537a386b92n@googlegroups.com>
<OrOdnfVPxcLsk9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<e5e8cda9-25bf-4c91-be90-474390fd358cn@googlegroups.com>
<zOWdnaL2eOSBhNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<f45c9a3d-68a4-4820-9fe4-3b573f2d4ad9n@googlegroups.com>
<crKdncHBBpXUvNL_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<716dcead-f71a-4835-82e7-97ec5981c840n@googlegroups.com>
<CNadnUpcW5JLu9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<CNadnUVcW5IvutL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<d1e777bd-e95a-4b9c-b9f3-c894ee7b72b1n@googlegroups.com>
<UvadnW85ztGnsdL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<ae2cbb8a-13b0-40e9-97ea-7a8466aec329n@googlegroups.com>
<i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <i42dnadnt_tPrNL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <5PM3K.340763$Gojc.260000@fx99.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 22:09:06 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10186
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:09 UTC

On 4/7/22 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 1:45 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:24:01 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2022 1:08 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:04:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 1:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:59 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:37:20 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 12:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 11:52 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:16:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 9:45 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 10:35:31 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cranks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to aim for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what-so-ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then H correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! The only thing that matters is whether the "input",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (P,P),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not. Did you tell a fib
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does? Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> angels and every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts. Until you retract that, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true. You also told us that H(P,P) == false. Do you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accountable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts or not? (Already asked, of course, but you a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejection
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you will. You can't answer the question without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not talk to you about anything besides that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to UTM applied to <H^><H^>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I am talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You said "under any condition at all",
>>>>>>>>>> Within the scope of embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>> Should I just ignore your next 20 replies?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So embedded_H, and therefore H, is the sole source of truth for if
>>>>>>>>> it's input reaches a final state?
>>>>>>>> The scope only includes embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and
>>>>>>>> explicitly
>>>>>>>> excludes everything else in the whole universe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're saying and embedded_H and H give different output for the
>>>>>>> same input?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am saying that H is off topic bitch.
>>>>>>
>>>>> STFU about it.
>>>>
>>>> In other words,
>>> I absolutely positively will not tolerate the most microscopic
>>> divergence from: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>
>>> Any replies with microscopic divergences will simply be ignored.
>>
>> So you've implicitly agreed that embedded_H and H are the same,
>
> I have done no such thing.
>
>


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

<qRM3K.340764$Gojc.133494@fx99.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29681&group=comp.theory#29681

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx99.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(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>
<leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <leudnbOlIa_Z39L_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 230
Message-ID: <qRM3K.340764$Gojc.133494@fx99.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 22:11:34 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 13151
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:11 UTC

On 4/7/22 3:57 PM, 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 any God damned thing in the universe that
> says otherwise is a God damned liar.
>
>


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

<QUM3K.538737$LN2.166100@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29682&group=comp.theory#29682

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
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>
<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>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <FeKdnbo027NvydL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 267
Message-ID: <QUM3K.538737$LN2.166100@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:15:12 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 15254
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:15 UTC

On 4/7/22 5:17 PM, 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


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

<FVM3K.538738$LN2.148297@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29683&group=comp.theory#29683

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.swapon.de!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
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>
<QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <QI-dncdxv-h6wdL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 279
Message-ID: <FVM3K.538738$LN2.148297@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:16:05 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 16380
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:16 UTC

On 4/7/22 5:51 PM, 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 ]

<BXM3K.538740$LN2.375540@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29684&group=comp.theory#29684

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
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>
<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>
<t_SdnY7uuvv78dL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t_SdnY7uuvv78dL_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 309
Message-ID: <BXM3K.538740$LN2.375540@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:18:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 18570
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:18 UTC

On 4/7/22 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>
> When embedded_H rejects its input it is necessary correct.
>
>


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

<0_M3K.538741$LN2.435204@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29685&group=comp.theory#29685

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
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>
<87ilrpbwrt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n72dnae_RMuWrdf_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d85buic.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2eghp$5n3$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<8735it7zaj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2hsgu$mmd$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<878rsj3rdn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t2k1bu$1srt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <0_M3K.538741$LN2.435204@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:20:44 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6856
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:20 UTC

On 4/7/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/7/2022 5:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/6/2022 8:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 6:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 4:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/6/2022 9:19 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for the main mistake, I know enough about cranks to aim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for only one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of two things: can they be persuaded to say enough to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are wrong (for example PO admission that H(P,P) ==
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> despite the fact that P(P) halts),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is the case that the simulated input to H cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own final state under any condition what-so-ever then H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps this finite string input to its reject state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe can correctly contradict that H is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have a white dog in your living room and everyone in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe disagrees, you still have a white dog in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> living room.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to see that you are still asserting that false is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> result from a halt decider for at least one halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the input to the halt decider specifies a non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of
>>>>>>>>>>> configurations then any damn thing anywhere else is totally
>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>>> If P(P) halts, H(P,P) should be true.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said any damn thing else is actually 100% perfectly totally
>>>>>>>>> irrelevant.
>>>>>>>> Yes!  The only thing that matters is whether the "input", (P,P),
>>>>>>>> specifies a halting computation or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The "input" to H is two
>>>>>>>>>> parameters that specify the halting computation P(P).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A halting computation that cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>>>>>> state
>>>>>>>>> under any condition what-so-ever?
>>>>>>>> Either P(P) halts or it does not.  Did you tell a fib when you
>>>>>>>> said it
>>>>>>>> does?  Since it halts, H(P,P) == false is wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>> any condition what-so-ever, thus if God and all his angels and
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>> being great and small said that the input to H specifies a halting
>>>>>>>>> computation they would all be liars.
>>>>>>>> You told that us P(P) halts.  Until you retract that, I will
>>>>>>>> take it to
>>>>>>>> be true.  You also told us that H(P,P) == false.  Do you need to
>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>> one or other of these statements?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As long as the input to H(P,P) never reaches its final state
>>>>>>> under any
>>>>>>> condition what-so-ever then no matter what P(P) does H was still
>>>>>>> correct because P(P) is not an input and H is only accountable for
>>>>>>> getting its inputs correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what two arguments must be passed to H to get H to tell us whether
>>>>>> P(P) halts or not?  (Already asked, of course, but you a dodging this
>>>>>> issue for obvious reasons.)
>>>>>
>>>>> You won't understand what I am saying until you first understand that
>>>>> your question has nothing to do with the correctness of the rejection
>>>>> of the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am referring to a point that is so subtle that no one ever noticed
>>>>> this subtle point for 90 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> I WILL KEEP REPEATING THIS UNTIL YOU RESPOND
>>>> Of course you will.  You can't answer the question without being
>>>> obviously wrong,
>>>
>>> THIS PROVES THAT I AM CORRECT
>>> It is the case that the correctly simulated input to embedded_H can
>>> never possibly reach its own final state under any condition at all.
>>> Therefore embedded_H is necessarily correct to reject its input.
>>
>> Yet you won't answer two simple questions!  Why?
>
>
> Because I absolutely positively will not tolerate divergence from
> validating my 17 years worth of work.
>
>

Then you die in your lie because your 17 years of work were just based
on error and lies.

You refusal to deal with the errors just validates that you, in your
heart, know they are errors, but you don't want to face them because you
know your work is just garbage.

Error can be fixed, lies are forever.

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

<t0N3K.538742$LN2.234358@fx13.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29686&group=comp.theory#29686

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0
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>
<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$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<87y20iguq6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Ad-dnXUjt5cmLND_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <t0N3K.538742$LN2.234358@fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 22:23:21 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3911
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 02:23 UTC

On 4/7/22 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> 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.)
>>
>
> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ then you must show how
> this occurs.
>
> 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 the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩ never reaches
> its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩ thus never halts.
>

Thus also embedded_H <H^> <H^> never answers, and thus fails to be the
needed decider, so it isn't a counter example.

FAIL.

Yes, you can make H^ applied to <H^> non-halting, but H / embedded_H
then dies without ever giving the correct answer, so is still wrong.

Just like YOU will die without ever giving a correct answer, just lies.

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

<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29689&group=comp.theory#29689

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:46:40 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:46:38 -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>
<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>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-R23YZ2Ek2n+jjuaciXAFt8RX83S31cBXBNs3NPy4yHJm+oFyX01+XGQeIlqPbx1XHelsUQ1kk3DSpz+!l60Flq+PJ4bmeIg8ya3tMZ0XRZvuBGZM6HZO2WrBqZrR6FbWhNcvuJ0oAnsfmGC+poJ4G1giqLCw!MA==
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: 4335
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:46 UTC

On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> 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.)
>>
>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>
> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>

If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
contradict this.

You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
input never halts.

Your example keeps assuming the counter-factual that H computes the
mapping from non-inputs. Deciders never do this !!!

> I also believe that you can't answer these questions because you know
> the answers to them also show you to be wrong.
>
> What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and what state does H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transition to?
>

--
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 ]

<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29690&group=comp.theory#29690

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5de4:0:b0:441:5fdf:ddae with SMTP id jn4-20020ad45de4000000b004415fdfddaemr16375479qvb.100.1649429605910;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:f883:0:b0:2d0:ee66:5f97 with SMTP id
i125-20020a0df883000000b002d0ee665f97mr15857691ywf.313.1649429605687; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 07:53:25 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <GfWdneVhSvpN183_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>
<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>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 14:53:25 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 85
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:53 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
> >>
> >> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
> >
> > I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
> > correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
> >
> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
> contradict this.
>
> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
> input never halts.

By the same logic, the input <N><5> to Ha3 cannot possibly reach its final state, so this input is correctly rejected. This mapping is done on the basis that this simulated input never halts.

Agreed?

>
> Your example keeps assuming the counter-factual that H computes the
> mapping from non-inputs. Deciders never do this !!!

Similarly, that N applied to <5> halts does not contradict that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5> because N applied to <5> is a non-finite string non-input.

Agreed?

> > I also believe that you can't answer these questions because you know
> > the answers to them also show you to be wrong.
> >
> > What string must be passed to H so that H can tell us whether or not Ĥ
> > applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and what state does H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transition to?
> >
>
>
> --
> 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 ]

<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29691&group=comp.theory#29691

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:59:31 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:59:30 -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>
<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>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 53
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-qgDq/CBJWP9P6ctbIrOyv97ze8yAGnS60j+aSB0QabpVzJ+Ygclk4xljyG1kNTx8xr4QMEz81ZuMaVo!8KALiIDHlHWLCFscwLwGm/4aWJ6MbpFndqpUXCkfemMhMF+aD85xF1fZknSjz4P+Hd1iIEo9RHDL!Yg==
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: 4301
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:59 UTC

On 4/8/2022 9:53 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
>>>>
>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>>>
>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>>>
>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
>> contradict this.
>>
>> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
>> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
>> input never halts.
>
> By the same logic, the input <N><5>
off topic thus ignored

--
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 ]

<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29692&group=comp.theory#29692

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:107:b0:2e1:d655:cc4c with SMTP id u7-20020a05622a010700b002e1d655cc4cmr16353628qtw.669.1649430733537;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:a10b:0:b0:2eb:736b:6fb4 with SMTP id
y11-20020a81a10b000000b002eb736b6fb4mr16942575ywg.161.1649430733296; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 08:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_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>
<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>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com> <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 15:12:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 62
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:12 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 9:53 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
> >>>>
> >>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
> >>>
> >>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
> >>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
> >>>
> >> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
> >> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
> >> contradict this.
> >>
> >> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
> >> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
> >> input never halts.
> >
> > By the same logic, the input <N><5>
> off topic thus ignored

None-the-less Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5> and nothing in the universe can possibly contradict this.

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

<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29693&group=comp.theory#29693

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:30:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:30:13 -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>
<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> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-edPhGBiZDgs8hCBWky2bNSCaDKQan9T9OKVada/WTgzQeZ3SrsO25H+16xzMW3uYaox5egil4Fd8TN5!tCn3EIGtKvvcKXRnSGYCRTecILsofBGjjFpCVdxNCkN2DDz9aJ6iYq6YGrDxl5wA0w6GUyZSLtJG!Yg==
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: 4654
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:30 UTC

On 4/8/2022 10:12 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 9:53 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
>>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>>>>>
>>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
>>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
>>>> contradict this.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
>>>> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
>>>> input never halts.
>>>
>>> By the same logic, the input <N><5>
>> off topic thus ignored
>
> None-the-less Ha3

Off topic dishonest dodges prove dishonestly.

--
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 ]

<XpadnXcg2qM_yM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29694&group=comp.theory#29694

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:32:50 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:32:49 -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>
<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> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XpadnXcg2qM_yM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-U8Wg1pUX76JS9Wpz8NzwjajLL/4HP8NVOV8x0dn8DhSKwPYrozAsKPbocQIK1ZiOkh2g0o8NI5YIe9D!/j26k4mBiPKjgDuUsW5aguGoSYUwqlILSXYwsv8/5PM0D00MxN1fnZW7/Z4xSiLLPGL9Leyg8YCN!IA==
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: 4836
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:32 UTC

On 4/8/2022 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 10:12 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2022 9:53 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
>>>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
>>>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
>>>>> contradict this.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
>>>>> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
>>>>> input never halts.
>>>>
>>>> By the same logic, the input <N><5>
>>> off topic thus ignored
>>
>> None-the-less Ha3
>
> Off topic dishonest dodges prove dishonestly.
Off topic dishonest dodges prove dishonesty.

--
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 ]

<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29695&group=comp.theory#29695

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9a8a:0:b0:443:cfc9:5dae with SMTP id y10-20020a0c9a8a000000b00443cfc95daemr16572562qvd.94.1649432072472;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:84:b0:63d:4a3d:eb5 with SMTP id
h4-20020a056902008400b0063d4a3d0eb5mr14251543ybs.145.1649432072307; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 08:34:32 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 08:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_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>
<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>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com> <Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com> <XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 15:34:32 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 73
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:34 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 10:12 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 9:53 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
> >>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
> >>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
> >>>> contradict this.
> >>>>
> >>>> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
> >>>> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
> >>>> input never halts.
> >>>
> >>> By the same logic, the input <N><5>
> >> off topic thus ignored
> >
> > None-the-less Ha3
> Off topic dishonest dodges prove dishonestly.

Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic which also makes it on topic. If you believe Ha is correct to reject <Ha^><Ha^>, then you MUST also believe that Ha3 is correct to reject <N><5> with the same exact logic. If not, that means you need to fix your logic because it's inconsistent and its results can't be trusted to be correct.

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

<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29696&group=comp.theory#29696

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 10:57:20 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 10:57:19 -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>
<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> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-pL3wIGn9ZRjYJXlK80Ok9bjk84IOAmxWdbyby7mRlqv7Z9aCBEAgwCi2CQvoPyOPYGGFVHNJh+nerTL!+bsEk2W+6LEdAAH8w6PvY6ne2zdxOoV1gtDzlqgmiMlPU6c4Z2VAxo4L63PZ3cSXWWin6VAoRv25!CQ==
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: 5092
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:57 UTC

On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 10:12 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/8/2022 9:53 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
>>>>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
>>>>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
>>>>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
>>>>>> contradict this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
>>>>>> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
>>>>>> input never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the same logic, the input <N><5>
>>>> off topic thus ignored
>>>
>>> None-the-less Ha3
>> Off topic dishonest dodges prove dishonestly.
>
> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic

I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try and
get away with the strawman error.

--
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 ]

<610a07f7-c109-46b8-a03f-6beb6c4dadc4n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29697&group=comp.theory#29697

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5c66:0:b0:443:5f43:2a5d with SMTP id i6-20020ad45c66000000b004435f432a5dmr16337550qvh.90.1649434069095;
Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:8d4a:0:b0:2ca:287c:6d3f with SMTP id
w10-20020a818d4a000000b002ca287c6d3fmr16329801ywj.484.1649434068774; Fri, 08
Apr 2022 09:07:48 -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: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_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>
<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> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <610a07f7-c109-46b8-a03f-6beb6c4dadc4n@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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 16:07:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 85
 by: Dennis Bush - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:07 UTC

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:57:27 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:30:21 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 4/8/2022 10:12 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:59:38 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 4/8/2022 9:53 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:46:48 AM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/7/2022 8:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 6:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/7/2022 10:51 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@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.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you believe (against the verified facts) that the simulated ⟨Ĥ0⟩
> >>>>>>>> reaches its final state of ⟨Ĥ0.qy⟩ or ⟨Ĥ0.qn⟩...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I believe what you've told me: that you claim that H(P,P)==false is
> >>>>>>> correct despite the fact that P(P) halts. That's wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state then this
> >>>>>> input is correctly rejected and nothing in the universe can possibly
> >>>>>> contradict this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You just don't know the computer science of it. H computes the mapping
> >>>>>> from its input to its reject state on the basis that this simulated
> >>>>>> input never halts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By the same logic, the input <N><5>
> >>>> off topic thus ignored
> >>>
> >>> None-the-less Ha3
> >> Off topic dishonest dodges prove dishonestly.
> >
> > Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try and
> get away with the strawman error.

And I showed that if you have a white dog in your living room that you must have a dog in your living room but you think that's off topic. Never mind the fact that the question is whether you have a black cat in your kitchen..

Any claims of "strawman" without an explanation have no merit and can be dismissed.

If you believe Ha3 is not correct to reject <N><5> then give a criteria for determining its correctness that can apply to *any* simulating halt decider and *any* input.

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

<WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29698&group=comp.theory#29698

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:09:03 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:09:01 -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: <WuWdnRn38KCCw83_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 244
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-g66HUN0eVEmNGKmfflM2y8aYdh++mPV3majPdibxfS4E4vC6Dyw+uxRqOMGVOhLaVxK/OzUr0rP5toS!5YGMh8Lu3j+1JaOGHjyGWhbU9KIjXfa6bG6Gu9TVG8yZE5PQNdI8cNCYL/dqxf4eGOJ4N3j6rN2d!ig==
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: 16658
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:09 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.


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

<t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29699&group=comp.theory#29699

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: pyt...@example.invalid (Python)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(11) [
key missing piece in dialogue ][ back door ]
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:24:02 +0200
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o81dgah5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5NCdnXEbkbPQjNP_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czhtg4z7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <jfmdnYpE_-Sou9P_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltenpd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <cfudncxuyvpiqtP_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d81ek89.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <0rydndjRmYSt2NP_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87pmltcg7x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FOidnTmeDpgxa9P_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87fsmodh7w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <OrOdnfRPxcJak9L_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="18751"; posting-host="7a25jG6pUKCqa0zKnKnvdg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Content-Language: fr
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
 by: Python - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:24 UTC

Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
....
>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>
> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try and
> get away with the strawman error.

You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
out that you "dog" is purring.

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

<7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=29700&group=comp.theory#29700

 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: Fri, 08 Apr 2022 11:28:21 -0500
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:28:19 -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>
<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> <87zgkwbh3m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<osadnV2OUrMF6tL_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tub4bckx.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GfWdneVhSvpN183_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b3188924-889f-45ec-8820-e1d896f73d21n@googlegroups.com>
<Hsedneu45OxO0M3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<9a7bd82f-3dc1-4826-bd13-653bbe6dee60n@googlegroups.com>
<XpadnXQg2qObyM3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<a41685c8-bb40-43ee-a32b-095ae506ee13n@googlegroups.com>
<ZqSdnUXjCr39xs3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t2pnj2$i9v$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <7PCdnYv_0Mo4_83_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 26
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-408Ip26ipGDwyVxevtLOjnXf3APnafLQeRkoAPAnFwXLIffPpf7a4kswgMb6RF/qvf+5wpkfKqOhj7H!tttULyUiC0tz6PFi5LZ1PZQxqwH5CklamnBuAP6F96UXxHb0u3FZaQLBy9oQH8qTnvDay9F85YCs!xw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3080
 by: olcott - Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:28 UTC

On 4/8/2022 11:24 AM, Python wrote:
> Stupid Crank Peter Olcott wrote:
>> On 4/8/2022 10:34 AM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> ...
>>> Not dishonent, just showing the flaws in your logic
>>
>> I proved that I have a white dog in my living room thus any discussion
>> about black cats in my kitchen is merely a deceitful attempt to try
>> and get away with the strawman error.
>
> You pretend to have a white dog in your living room with the argument
> that it has four legs and is white, then you dodge criticisms pointing
> out that you "dog" is purring.

On 4/7/2022 5:51 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> Yes, we agree that ⟨Ĥn⟩ ⟨Ĥn⟩ is non-halting.

Therefore embedded_H is correct to reject this input.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor